Mike Erich - The Mad Theologian

A Voice from the Past - Justin Martyr

2012-01-27T14:00:00.000-08:00

And to any thoughtful person would anything appear more incredible, than, if we were not in the body, and some were to say that it was possible that from a small drop of human seed bones and sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such as we see? For let this now be said hypothetically: if you yourselves were not such as you now are, and born of such parents and causes, and one were to show you human seed and a picture of a man, and were to say with confidence that from such a substance such a being could be produced, would you believe before you saw the actual production? No one will dare to deny that such a statement would surpass belief. In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again.

Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, First Apology, Chapter XIX (The Apostolic Fathers with Justin and Irenaeus, translated by Philip Schaff, Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001, p. 223)

While Justin's science was a little off, does his argument basically make sense? Is it helpful?

The Secrets of the Knights Templar

2012-01-26T14:00:00.000-08:00

There are many who claim to have found some mysterious secret about God or ultimate truth. Some lost to the ages and now perhaps only recently found by them or the group they represent. This is not a new idea, but part of a pattern that goes back to ancient times. But it is hard to fit this approach in with Biblical Christianity and the One who said He did nothing in secret (John 18:20,21). Yet there are continuously those who try to fit the two together. One example of this is the attempt to read things into the story of the Knights Templar.

The Knights Templar were a special fighting monastic order created to defend Palestine at the time of the Crusades. When Palestine was lost, they continued as an order in hopes of one day regaining it. But they were abolished based on charges brought by Philip the Fourth, King of France. This event has led some to claim there was a mysterious secret belonging to the Templars that King Philip abolished the order to destroy. But is there evidence for this? The Knights Templar were accused of worshiping an idol called Baphomet, cursing the cross, homosexual activity, and sexual activity with demons. None or this seems to reflect any kind of coherent philosophy or alternate form of Christianity. It also is not believable (even leaving aside the sexual relations with demons). These things were claimed to be in the initiation rites into the Templars. We are to assume young men wanting to enlist in the Crusades would all easily agree to such things and no one would blab. Also, Baphomet was a European distortion for Mohammed, who, it was claimed, the Muslims worshiped. Given it was a slander that Muslims worshiped Mohammed, it is not possible that the Templars picked it up from them. The only evidence for this was confessions elicited by torture, many of which were later retracted. All this ends up looking like an attempt by King Philip to confiscate the Templar's holdings (rumored to be very considerable). King Philip took a similar approach toward Pope Boniface VIII, who had opposed him, by claiming the pope had been involved in magic and summoning demons. These accusations helped lay the foundation for the later witch hunts. There was no real basis for the charges against the Templars, let alone a dangerous secret they held.

This is an example of the kind of approach that looks for mysterious secrets where there are none. It is better to stick with the clear, open form of Christianity, rather than looking for such mysteries. Is it really possible that the true meaning of Christianity had somehow been passed down secretly only to emerge without solid evidence at a later date? And is it not better to look to the open testimony of history to decide what Christianity is?

Do You Have to Be Crazy to Be a Charismatic?

2012-01-25T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

Do you have to be crazy to be a charismatic? Or does it just help? Let's look at the issues involved.

The idea that certain spiritual gifts have passed away has no solid basis in Scripture, and we are told not to forbid people to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39). (I know it is claimed that modern tongues are not real tongues, but would God command not to forbid something that is about to pass away?) Now there are rules laid down for the use of the gifts (1 Corinthians 14:26-40). However, the description given is fairly informal. We are instructed not to all talk at once and not to do things, such as speaking in tongues without an interpreter, which are not understandable. But we need to be careful of looking down on something because it is not dignified enough (2 Samuel 6:20-23). Also, the fact a gift is misused does not mean it is not legitimate. 1 Corinthians 12-14 was written to check the misuse of spiritual gifts. (Note that Paul was not shy, and if the gifts being used were largely counterfeit, we would expect him to say so.)

There is an emotional aspect to our response to God's truth. We are to rejoice (Philippians 4:4), we are to have peace (John 14:27); even faith, hope, and love have emotional components (1 Corinthians 13:13). But what is appropriate and what is overboard? Now I am hesitant to criticize other people's spiritual experiences, if they do not result in false teaching or disobedience to God's commands. But it is when people pursue experience rather then pursuing God and hold up their experience as necessary for everyone that it creates problems.

Scripture speaks of people being overwhelmed by the greatness of God (Daniel 10:8-12; Acts 9:3-9; Isaiah 6:1-5). I myself have felt the Spirit fall so powerfully I felt like I had been hit by a truck. But I have never fallen over backwards nor felt that God wanted me to. I do not feel I can discount this in all cases as a genuine spiritual experience, but I see no Scriptural basis for requiring it. I have known cases where God's truth has come home to me in such a powerful way I ended up crying or laughing . I am not at all sure this is the same as "holy laughter". As for "holy drunkenness," I do not think this is what Acts 2:13 means. Further, regarding rolling in the aisles, barking like a dog, or roaring like a lion, I do not see a Scriptural or rational basis for these.

But the basic problem is that certain spiritual gifts and emotional experiences are seen as showing a higher level of spiritual life in those who have them. This is contrary to Scripture (1 Corinthians 13:1-3; 12:28-30; Romans 12:3), which says God is at work in all His people to accomplish His purposes (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:10).

I Will Build My Church

2012-01-24T14:00:00.000-08:00

Christ has said He will build His church (Matthew 16:18). But what does that mean? It means that Christ is at work in the lives of each of His people to accomplish His purposes (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Colossians 1:28,29). It means that God has put His people together, giving each one a place and function to work together to build up the whole (1 Corinthians 12:11-27; Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-5). Further, it is God's work to bring people to see their need of Christ and become part of His church (1 Corinthians 3:6,7; Acts 2:47; 13:48).

Now I do not in any way want to deny the obligation for us to be involved in building one another up (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Hebrews 10:24,25) or to proclaim God's truth to those who need to hear it (Romans 10:14,15; 1 Peter 3:15; Matthew 28:18-20). But the question I have to ask is, what are we trusting in to accomplish this? Are we trusting in God and His power (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Hebrews 11:27)? Or are we trusting in our planning and our programs and our abilities and our organization (Zechariah 4:6; Isaiah 31:1; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5)? There is a thin line here. I do not in any way want to discourage industry or creativity or imagination in doing the work of God. But when we start relying on these to do God's work, it can produce a kind of desperation, where we see God's work as falling on our shoulders and the continuance of Christ's church as dependent on our efforts. This can cause people to go to greater and greater extremes, hoping to find the one right way to make God's work prosper. Also, when someone feels they have found the right way to make things work, it can produce pride (Proverbs 16:18) and promote division from those who advocate another solution (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

One thing that makes this worse is the fact that western civilization in general seems to be turning away from Biblical truth. I am not sure this is entirely a bad thing, as I expect that much nominal Christianity of the past has been a superficial faith that results from simply conforming to the culture and has had little reality to it. But it is true that to maintain a Christian faith today requires a deeper commitment to go against the cultural flow. This also does not seem to me necessarily a bad thing. But good or bad, I do not see any quick fix to bring us back to where we used to be. Now I do not in any way want to oppose solid, responsible efforts to reach people for Christ and impact our culture with His truth. But we do need to trust that God is in control of our lives and the world (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 43:13). And we need to put aside the panaceas that so often backfire and do not accomplish their purpose.

The Sound of Worship

2012-01-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

How important is it to orchestrate every aspect of the worship service? When does this become manipulation? Where is the right balance?

A Voice from the Past - Lewis

2012-01-20T16:57:00.000-08:00

Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

C. S. Lewis, 1898-1963, The Weight of Glory, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Harper Collins Publishers, 2001, p. 26)

Is this a true description of us? How can we change?

The Great Divide

2012-01-19T14:00:00.000-08:00

What is the problem we as Christians have in reaching unbelievers? Is the problem that we are not relevant and are not meeting people where they are? Now Scripture does talk about meeting people where they are, and I am convinced there is a place for that (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). But there is a danger here of going too far and becoming conformed to the world (Romans 12:1,2). Also, the Gospel is a stumbling block, and we cannot expect people necessarily to accept it just because we present it in a way they understand (1 Corinthians 1:22-25). But I am convinced the more basic issue is the issue of self-righteousness. We forget that we are sinners saved by grace and see ourselves as upright, respectable people, who have it all together.

Scripture makes it clear that we are sinners (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9) who are saved by God's grace apart from anything we can do to earn it (Romans 4:4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5,6). This salvation should result in a change in behavior (Titus 2:11-14; Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 3:18). But this change is imperfect in this life (Philippians 3:12-16; Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:25), and we need to continually return to the grace of God (Romans 8:33,34; 2 Peter 1:9; 1 John 1:9). We need to remember this so that we do not fall into the Pharisees' attitude of feeling we are superior to others (Matthew 9:11-13; Luke 7:36-50; 19:1-10).

Now there is a very careful balance here; we do not want to condone evil (Ephesians 5:11; Jude 22,23; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Also, if we simply conform to the world, we have nothing to offer anyone. But we need to avoid the pride which makes us refuse to reach out to people. This is often made more difficult by our current cultural stance of advocating and approving sin. (This can be particularly difficult for older people or those brought up in Christian homes who were raised with a deep aversion to behaviors now considered acceptable.) But we need to remember that we are sinners saved by God's grace and that Christ came to seek and save the lost. It can be a difficult course to navigate, with dangers on every side. But the most dangerous condition is when we feel no struggle. This means that we have totally compromised with the world or have become totally indifferent to those who need God's salvation. Rather, we must take the hard course in between. Also, while there is a danger in reaching out to people in their sin, it is clear disobedience not to try. But to try to be relevant and conform to people's wishes is even more dangerous, because it is even easier to cross the line without knowing it. But it is not Scriptural to hide out in a safe Christian environment and refuse to extend a hand to those who need a Savior.

In Defense of Ritual

2012-01-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

Are rituals in the church a good or a bad thing? The Old Testament is full of rituals, but the New Testament puts the emphasis on worshiping in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). But this shift to heart attitude rather than rigidly prescribed ceremonies does not mean no ceremonies are appropriate (note baptism and the Lord's Supper). Rather, even beyond the sacraments we see a number of symbolic actions, such as laying on of hands (Acts 13:3; 28:8), anointing with oil (Mark 6:13; James 5:14), and bowing (Ephesians 3:14; Matthew 28:17). Also, the simple fact is we always have some kind of ritual involved in corporate worship. The question may be how well it is thought out, as well as what particular elements you are willing to allow, but not whether there is some fixed procedure involved.

There are reasons why we shy away from any kind of ritual. There are those who those who, contrary to Scripture (Colossians 2:16,17; Galatians 4:9,10), have tried to impose their precise rituals on others, even to the point of arguing over the date of Easter and over how many fingers one should cross oneself with. But isn't forbidding various rituals the same thing (Romans 14:1-12; Colossians 2:20-23)? Also, we are not simply to go through the motions of worship (Matthew 6:1-18; Malachi 1:10). But I have found one can go through the motions no matter what type of worship one engages in. The issue is one's attitude, not the form.

Is there, then, any point in ritual? I am convinced there is. It engages the worshipers on a number of levels and encourages them to be involved in the worship and not just to be spectators. Therefore, if it is not rigidly prescribed and not done in a mindless manner, it has its place in legitimate worship.

The Standard of Selfishness

2012-01-17T14:00:00.000-08:00

One of the common assumptions of modern society is that if we just act in our own self-interest, it will all come out right in the end. This is most clearly advocated in capitalism, which claims that if we just follow our greed, everything will work out for the best. (This should not be read as an endorsement of socialism, which has its own problems.) But this is often found in other areas. It often comes out in practice to doing whatever we want as long as it does not hurt the other person. What this amounts to is being selfish as long as it does not clearly conflict with someone else's selfish desires. This runs totally counter to the Christian idea that we should put the real welfare of the other person before our own (Luke 10:25-37; Philippians 2:3-11; Matthew 7:12). (It is important to understand that this measures the other's welfare by the fixed standard of what God commands and not what they happen to want.) Can this approach based on selfishness be sustained in practice?

The idea is that if we all just follow our own interests, it will all magically work in the end. This does not seem to me plausible. There will always be a few people who are smarter or more fortunate or more capable or just more conscienceless, who will end up getting their way and tramping on others in the process. There will always be someone who finds a way to cheat. The idea that the bad intentions will all even out in the end seems questionable in the extreme. And do we really want to live in a society where everyone is out to get everyone else but is prevented from doing so by the others' diligence? As for avoiding hurting someone, what do we mean by "hurt." If we limit it to physical pain, we leave open many nasty things that can done to people that do not involve physical pain. But if we measure "hurt" by what people regard as harm to them, we are faced with the impossible situation of trying to cater to everyone who can convince themselves that they are "hurt" if we do not grant them their every whim. The result is not to give full scope to our selfishness, but to enslave everyone to the desires of the most sensitive and easily hurt among us. And since what they want will undoubtedly be inconsistent, we would never be able to fulfill it. May I suggest that the reason this even seems viable is that we still possess some remnants of conventional (generally Judeo-Christian) morality. We still hold that certain things are right and wrong in themselves, no matter what the individual thinks of them. But we use this concept of mutual selfishness to justify the particular cases where we want to able to cut corners and ignore this standard. But we need to realize the anarchy to which this kind of logic leads.

A Touch of Humor - Their Evangelists

2012-01-16T11:00:00.000-08:00

What should we do when those of another faith come knocking on our door? Should we slam the door in their faces? How should we respond?

A Voice from the Past - Hilary of Poitiers

2012-01-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

But the novel sound of these words disturbed the Apostle Philip. A Man is before their eyes; this Man avows Himself the Son of God, and declares that when they have known Him they will know the Father. He tells them that they have seen the Father, and that, because they have seen Him, they shall know Him hereafter. This truth is too broad for the grasp of weak humanity; their faith fails in the presence of these paradoxes.

Hilary of Poitiers, 300-368 AD, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), Book 7, 35 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol IX, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Hilary of Poitiers: Select Works, translated by E, W. Watson, L. Pullan, and others, T&T Clark and Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997, p. 133; Quote is in reference to John 14:8,9)

Why is it important for a Christian to be amazed by Christ and who He is? What are the implications of this?

Reaping and Sowing

2012-01-12T14:00:00.000-08:00

The Victory Parade

2012-01-11T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

Scripture speaks of our being always led in the triumph in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 2:14). There is an aspect of this that it is easy to miss, given just the English translation. The word "triumph" is a reference to a specific Roman custom. When a Roman general won a great victory he was awarded a triumph. This was a procession through Rome followed by his soldiers. With him would be the best of the spoil and the most illustrious of his prisoners. He and his soldiers, who would be amply rewarded from the spoil, would be admired and cheered by the crowd as they marched through the city. In the same way, Christ has already conquered sin and death (John 16:33; 1 Corinthians 15:54-57), and we who have faith in Christ are victorious with Him (1 John 5:4). He has overcome and disarmed His enemies, leading them in the triumph (Colossians 2:15), and provides gifts to His followers (Ephesians 4:7,8). Therefore, we are already in the victory parade.

Why, then, does it sometimes not feel and look like this to us? I would submit that while we are overwhelming conquerors (Romans 8:35-37), this is from God's perspective and is in spite of the various trials mentioned in the passage. God causes all things to work together for good (Romans 8:28), but we often do not see them doing so at the present time. Nonetheless, we can trust God that, though we may not see it, we are victorious. And we should live our lives in view of the fact we have already won and are in the victory parade.

Standing in Judgment

2012-01-10T14:00:00.000-08:00

It is common for Christian leaders to view the modern church and modern Christians with contempt, particularly in the United States. Now it is not my purpose to deal with all the specifics involved here, but there is an underlying attitude that needs to be addressed. Scripture makes it clear that we are to correct those involved in specific sins and doctrinal errors (Galatians 6:1; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Matthew 18:15-17). (There is also an attitude of gentleness required in those who correct, but that is another subject.) It also clearly calls us to preach against falsehood (2 Timothy 4:1-4; Ephesians 4:11-16; Acts 20:27). But Scripture condemns a certain type of judgment (Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 14:4; James 4:11,12). We are to correct identifiable sins, but we are to avoid making an over-all judgment of the person. Paul says he does not even judge himself (1 Corinthians 4:3,4). This does not mean he does not examine himself for particular problems to correct (1 Corinthians 11:31,32; Psalms 139:23,24; 2 Corinthians 13:5,6). But he does not try to determine his place before God. Only God, who knows the heart, can give a correct final judgment (1 Corinthians 4:5; Romans 2:16; 1 Timothy 5:24,25). Also, we are told we will be judged based on the standard we use to evaluate others (Romans 2:1; Luke 6:37,38; James 2:12).

Now I do not want to discourage the correcting of specific errors or the call for specific improvements in the present Christian church. But much of the generalized criticism would seem to fall under what is forbidden by Scripture. That does not mean I want to deny that the current church has its failings. All ages of the church have had problems. (If we examine the New Testament epistles, we see this was true from the very beginning.) But is it really my place to decide how our age rates? Is it not more important to address the specific problems we see and let God make out the final scorecard? And could it be that part of the problem is unrealistic expectations? We look for the kind of perfect church that will not exist until Christ returns (Ephesians 5:26,27; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Revelation 19:7-10). Yet we are all still sinners and have not arrived at perfection (Philippians 3:12-16; Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:25). Now I do not want to justify sin or discourage realistic work for the improvement of the present state of the Christian church. But I think that a generally cynical attitude is not helpful for this but actually makes it harder. When people perceive you are looking down on them, they find it hard to hear what you are saying. And it is easy to build up an attitude of superiority that prevents us from reaching people (John 7:49; Luke 15:27-32; Matthew 9:11-13). Then we become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

A Touch of Humor - Delegation

2012-01-09T11:00:00.000-08:00

Should we keep doing thing just because we have always done them? How should we decide what to keep?

A Voice from the Past - Ignatius of Antioch

2012-01-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

There is only one Physician -
Very Flesh, yet Spirit too;
Uncreated, and yet born;
God-and-Man in One agreed,
Very-Life-in-Death indeed,
Fruit of God and Mary's seed;
At once impassable and torn
By pain and suffering here below:
Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know.

Ignatius of Antioch, 35-98 AD, Epistle to the Ephesians, 7 (Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin Books, 1968, pp. 77,78)

What does this tell us about how our Lord Jesus Christ was understood from earliest times? How is that relevant to us today?

Should We Try to Christianize the World

2012-01-05T14:00:00.000-08:00

Should we try to Christianize the world or at least our nation? At first glance, the Scripture does not give us much encouragement that the world will come over to our side. In fact, we are told that to love this present world is to make ourselves enemies of God (1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4; Romans 12:1,2). We are also told not to be surprised if the world is hostile to us and opposes us (John 15:18-21; 16:1-4; Matthew 10:17-25). Nor are we encouraged to expect that a positive situation will be found when the Lord comes the second time (Matthew 24:21,22; Luke 18:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:2-7).

But we, as Christians, are called to promote that which is good and just (Galatians 6:9,10; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:13-15). We are called to help the poor and the oppressed (Matthew 25:31-46; Isaiah 58:6,7; Luke 10:25-37). And we are told God has empowered us to accomplish His work in the world (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6 ; Psalms 127:1,2). If we are to be advocates for what is right and merciful, we cannot sit idly by and allow injustice without trying to change it.

Now I am convinced that the acceptance of nominal Christianity by western civilization was a foxhole conversion. The Roman Empire was falling apart, and they were looking for something to hold things together and turned to God. There were good things and bad things that came out of this situation. But once things got better, we began the process of slowly deserting Him. There have been a number of movements to turn our culture back to God, but though they slowed the decline, it continued. It is certainly possible that we may once more turn back to God as a society. But I see no assurance that we will. But we need to trust God to bring us through whatever happens (Proverbs 3:5,6; Psalms 46:10; Romans 4:17-22). And we need to ask if one of the reason we want to Christianize our culture is so we can be comfortable and not have our faith challenged. Determined working for good in an imperfect world is to be encouraged. But the idea that taking a few steps or passing a few laws will produce a truly Christian society should be avoided. Further, we need to recognize that we are back in the place of the early church, as Christians in a pagan society. We need to let go of the past and rebuild again from where we are. For only the return of the One who will rule as King will transform us or this world into what they should be (Romans 8:19-25; Philippians 3:20-21; Revelation 21:4).

God's Leading

2012-01-04T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

Does God guide us, or are we left to our own wisdom? And how do we recognize God's leading? Now God is in control of all things (Ephesians 1:11) and causes all things to work together for good to those who are called by Him (Romans 8:28). He has prepared certain good works beforehand that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:10), and the Spirit's leading is based on our being sons of God (Romans 8:14). I would therefore conclude that God guides every genuine child of God. This is a fact and is not dependent on my feelings or on my figuring it out. Nor does the fact God leads us mean it will always be easy, but it does mean He will go through troubles with us (John 16:33)

Now sometimes God allows us to feel that He is leading us, but knowing His leading is not just based on our feelings. On the contrary, while I believe God can use our careful weighing of the facts or circumstances or feelings to lead us where He wants us to go, I do not believe we should trust in any of these. Nor do I believe we should direct our lives based purely on what makes sense to us from a human point of view. Rather, we should trust in God that He will direct us to where we should be. And in any situation we must prayerfully ask whether something is indeed God guiding us or our imagination. But we need to do so with the confidence that God is in control of our life and will direct us where we need to be. I remember walking into a church for the first Sunday and hearing the pastor say that he was not going to be in charge of the Sunday School and maybe someone who just walked in the door was the person for the job. I felt like God tapped me on the shoulder and told me I was the one. As it turned out, I was. But I still approached the situation with caution and let God bring everything together, rather than jumping in too quickly based on my feeling. But it did direct me.

Now I want to make it clear that the main thing is obedience to God's revealed will (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Though even when we do disobey He can arrange things, like He did for Jonah, to bring us back to the right path (see the book of Jonah). But my concern is for those who honestly want to obey God but are afraid if they do not have the right feeling or use the right method they will miss God's direction in their lives. Or they may come to trust in their feelings or the method rather than God. For I am convinced the reason God does not give us a formula to determine His leading is we must not come to trust the formula rather than Him.

Following Biblical Examples

2012-01-03T14:00:00.000-08:00

There is a common tendency to take Biblical examples as commandments. In fact, there are many teachings and practices that have been derived this way. But is this legitimate? The Scripture says that God commands what He intends to command and it is wrong to add to it (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6; Matthew 15:8,9). Nor is there any basis in Scripture for seeing an example, even a repeated example, as a commandment. There are four cases in Scripture where God split bodies of water (Exodus 14:13-31; Joshua 3:14-17; 2 Kings 2:7-14). Does this mean that if we truly follow God, He will split a body of water for us? I would therefore conclude that, while an example can illustrate a clearly taught Biblical principle, it does not constitute a commandment. The exception to this is that examples can show us what is allowed, but even there we must be careful, so as not misconstrue something that is simply mentioned to have occurred or is a special case as being universally allowed. I am convinced that God is not shy: the things He intended to command, He commanded, at least in principle. I do not see evidence that He left us obscure commandments to be strained from Scripture based on our human intellect.

I am convinced that much of what is taught today in terms of church government and ministry procedures is based on examples rather than the clear teaching of Scripture. Such examples may be useful in illustrating principles, but what God does not command, He leaves free. In connection with this, there is a danger of putting the early church on a pedestal and regarding them as a perfect church. If you read the New Testament epistles, you will see the early church struggled with the same kinds of problems we have today: false doctrine, carnal behavior, and a tendency toward various extremes. We are faced with the Corinthian's carnality. The departure of the Galatians from the gospel. The Thessalonians quitting their jobs and living in idleness in view of Christ's immediate coming. The Colossians entertaining false doctrine. And many more problems. Looking at the early church may be useful, as they may not have had as much time to depart from the apostles' teaching as we have. But they are not the standard for perfection. This does not mean we are necessarily required to change our current organization or procedures, but we should recognize they may not be the only right way to do things. Now this does leave us a greater ability to adapt to current circumstances, but we should beware of the idea that it will make a major difference. If this were an important issue, God would have commanded it. Rather, we should shift our emphasis away from these things and focus on the things God really does teach and command. I would therefore encourage basing our behavior on the clear commandments and principles of Scripture, rather than trying to draw precepts out of examples.

A Touch of Humor - The Optimist

2012-01-02T11:00:00.000-08:00

How can we avoid having a cynical attitude about what goes wrong in this world? How can we avoid falling into the same errors over and over again?

A Voice from the Past - Leo the Great

2011-12-30T14:00:00.000-08:00

For not only is God believed to be both Almighty and the Father, but the Son is shown to be co-eternal with Him, differing in nothing from the Father because He is God from God, Almighty from Almighty, and being born from the Eternal one is co-eternal with Him; not later in point in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not divided in essence; but at the same time the only begotten of the eternal Father was born eternal of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this nativity which took place in time took nothing from, and added nothing to that divine and eternal birth, but expended itself wholly on the restoration of man who had been deceived; in order that he might both vanquish death and overthrow by his strength, the Devil who possessed the power of death. For we should not now be able to overcome the author of sin and death unless He took our nature on Him and made it His own, whom neither sin could pollute nor death retain.

Leo the Great, 400-460 AD, Letter 28, To Flavian, commonly called "The Tome," Section II (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 12, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 1997, T & T Clark and Wm. B.Eerdmans, The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, translated by Charles Lett Feltoe, p. 39)

Why is it important that Jesus was both God and man? What impact does this have on our lives?

The Errors of Good Men

2011-12-29T14:00:00.000-08:00

It has been said that in the Christian church it is the errors of good men that are the most dangerous. I am convinced this is frequently the case. The ancient Christian church was besieged by alternative forms of Christianity that distorted its basic doctrines. The New Testament shows this was a problem from the very beginning of the church. Now many of the members of the church at the time were poor and uneducated; many were slaves. How could they be protected from being lured away by false doctrine? They were encouraged to listen to their leaders; they would steer them right. But the problem was that the opposing viewpoints also had leaders who taught their beliefs. How would they know which leader to follow?

It was noted that Jesus had instructed the apostles, and the apostles then instructed those who followed them. Who were you going to believe, the church that could trace itself back to the apostles or some new group coming out of left field, claiming to be in possession of the real Christian message? Now this idea does have a certain degree of sense to it. It is one useful criterion for evaluating new teaching. Can we believe that the early church got Jesus' teachings totally wrong, only to have the truth discovered by someone in recent times (Jude 3, Galatians 1:8,9; Isaiah 8:20)? But as the sole basis for deciding on truth, this has problems. It assumes that, unlike Israel in the Old Testament, which had a habit of drifting away from the truth of God, the Christian church could not do so. But this flies in the face of what we already see even in New Testament times (Galatians 1:6,7; Colossians 2:16-19; Revelation 2:12-29). This became more questionable the further removed the church became from New Testament times. Also, as time went on, this developed into the concept that the church descended from the apostles could not be questioned, in spite of the Biblical requirement of holding leaders responsible to follow the Word of God (Acts 17:11; Galatians 2:11-16; Jeremiah 8:8,9). This led to many unbiblical errors. It took the Protestant Reformation to correct these.

Now I say this, not simply to point out the historical error, but to encourage us to avoid falling into this same trap in the present day. There is a temptation for current leaders to walk this same path if they are not careful. It is easier to teach people to just follow their leaders than to do the hard task of really educating them in the truths of the Christian faith. But it is only the second way that will produce the strong Christians we are called to produce (Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 20:27; 2 Timothy 4:1-4). Now I am not saying we should not value and consider the wisdom of great Christians from the past. But we should not strive to produce mindless followers, but strong Christian warriors, who know what they believe and why they believe it.

Staking Our Claim

2011-12-28T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

One thing that prospectors do is stake claims. The rest of us have a tendency to do the same thing. We stake claims to various things as belonging to ourselves. Yet can we really stake a claim to anything when everything we have comes from God (Job 1:21; Matthew 6:25-34)? Also, as C. S. Lewis points out in "The Screwtape Letters," there are various senses of the word "my". It can range from "my God" to "my country," "my church," "my wife," and all the way down to "my boots." According to Lewis, Satan's strategy is to reduce everything to the level of "my boots." Something that belongs to me that I can do whatever I feel like with. Sometimes we can be very spiritual about this. We can speak of "my ministry" (as opposed to other people's ministries), "my Bible study group" (as opposed to other people's Bible study groups), "my church" (as opposed to other congregations) or "my denomination" (even if the differences between it and other denominations are Biblically minor). Therefore we can promote our ends while claiming to be spiritual.

Yet God takes the opposite approach. He says we should put other people before ourselves (Philippians 2:1-4; Romans 12:9-21). He even set the example by giving up His rights in order to redeem us (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 5:6-8; John 3:16). And if we have been redeemed, we not only belong to God because of His creating us (Psalms 139:13-16), but also because He has redeemed us (1 Corinthians 6:20). Therefore we should stop staking claims to things, but offer everything we have, including ourselves (Romans 12:1,2), to live for Him.

A Child Is Born

2011-12-27T14:00:00.000-08:00

A Touch of Humor - The Procrastinator

2011-12-26T11:00:00.000-08:00

What things can contribute to our putting off what God would have us do? How can we avoid them?

A Voice from the Past - Martin Luther

2011-12-23T14:00:00.000-08:00

Here is the Child in whom is salvation. To me there is no greater consolation given to mankind then this, that Christ became man, a child, a babe, playing in the lap and at the breasts of his most gracious mother. Who is there whom this sight would not comfort? Now is overcome the power of sin, death, hell, conscience, and guilt, if you come to this gurgling Babe and believe that he is come, not to judge you, but to save.

Martin Luther, 1483-1546, (The Martin Luther Christmas Book, Nativity, translator Roland Bainton, The Westminster Press, 1948, p. 40)

What can can we learn about God from Christmas? How should it affect the rest of the year?

Merry Christmas!

The Good Invasion

2011-12-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

How can we explain this world we live in? There is so much good in it. There is so much wrong with it. We can see it as wonderful world and try to relegate the bad things to something superficial. (We need to be positive and everything will be well.) But confronted with the real facts of the world or even our own lives, this viewpoint seems to crumble. Outside of Scripture I know of only two arguments against the world being basically good. All of human history and all of human experience. Or we can take the view that the world is a nasty place and that is just the way it is. (We must be strong and endure the world with its absurdities.) But if this is really how the world should be, why do we criticize it? Where do we get the standard to do so? And why, in the midst of the chaos, do we find things that reflect that kind of goodness and rightness that we seek but are not consistently able to find in reality as a whole? Is there another answer?

I would submit that the answer that best makes sense of our situation is the Christian one. The world as it was originally created by the hand of God was good (Genesis 1:31; 1 Timothy 4:4,5; James 1:17). But human beings rebelled against God, and as a result evil has come into the world (Genesis 3:1-19; Romans 8:19-23; 5:12-21) and we are sinners in rebellion against God (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9). We are also told there are evil spiritual forces in control of this world as a result of mankind's rebellion, who are instigating evil in this world (Ephesians 2:1-3; Hebrews 2:14,15; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4). But we still see in that world the remnants of the original goodness (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:15-17; Romans 2:14,15). This fits with what we see in the world, a good world that has gone bad.

But because of this we have a basis for a solution. If the present world is basically good, we must ignore the depths of the problem. If the evil of the world is how it is supposed to be, the situation is hopeless. But if this world is a good world created by God, and it was corrupted by sin, then He can set it right again. To do this, God became a man (John 1:1-14; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:9,10) and paid the price we needed to pay for our rebellion against the true King (1 Peter 2:24,25; Colossians 2:13-15; 2 Corinthians 5:21) and opened the way for us to be reconciled to God through faith in Him (Romans 4:4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9). And ultimately He will return the world to its original state of perfection at His Second Coming (Revelation 21:1-4; Philippians 3:20-21; 2 Peter 3:8-13). Christmas therefore is the beachhead for the good invasion, which God has begun. The question is, which side do we want to be on?

The Castle

2011-12-21T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

There were some travelers from a far-off village, who in an uninhabited land came across a beautiful castle on a hill. It was a magnificent building, full of beautiful tapestries and impressive ornaments. Also, as they entered the banquet hall they found food laid out for a feast. There were also many empty bedrooms with large four-poster beds. But the really mysterious thing was that every day the table was stocked with food at morning, noon, and evening, and every night they found the beds made with new linen. But they never saw the owner or any servants who did these things. And though they hid and watched for them and set traps for them, they could not catch them.

They went out to all the surrounding towns and told them about the wonder they had found. Many came and were inspired by the place to tell stories about it, often trying to explain its ose who were his pupils and taught others the truths they got from him. But the others rejected such things, considering the man a fraud or a madman or, long afterward, a tale created by his followers. But those who believed in the man claimed theirs was the only real answer. And their tribe persists to this day.

Is Christianity a Myth?

2011-12-20T14:00:00.000-08:00

Is Christianity a myth? First we must ask, what is a myth? This is a word that means many different things to different people. It can mean that something is false. Now as a statement of opinion this is legitimate, but it requires proof. If assumed without proof, it is circular reasoning. Now traditionally the word myth has been used for theological viewpoints that were no longer considered a serious option, at least by civilized people. With the coming of New Age beliefs, it is questionable whether this can still be taken for granted. But Christianity was never in that category. Now one could assert that the old attitude toward these myths is correct and Christianity is basically the same thing. But this, again, without proof is circular reasoning.

Or myths can be see it as a depiction of a mythical experience rooted in existential philosophy. This is a close relative to the approach of allegorism, which sees such stories as, not to be taken literally, but pictures of some underlying truth. Now to the extent allegorism involves reading in a foreign belief, without justification in its original theological context, it should be rejected out of hand. For me to read my beliefs back into someone else's belief system without a basis within that system is, again, circular reasoning.

Or a myth can simply be defined as an overall view of reality that captures the imagination. In this context I have no problem with calling Christianity a myth, so long as we allow for the possibility of a true myth. I see no basis for excluding this unless it can be proven beforehand that reality must be pedantic and boring. But there is a danger here that we might believe something, not because it is true, but because it is a good story. Certainly, we should be on guard against this. But used as an argument in favor of a secular view of reality, this has a basic problem. I used to be an agnostic and was a firm believer in the great secular myth, which C. S. Lewis called the myth of evolution (see The Funeral of a Great Myth in Christian Reflections). While it goes back to Shelley and Keats, it can be found more recently in Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek) and Arthur C. Clarke (the 2001: A Space Odyssey series, Childhood's End). This view, which sees mankind as, not at home in paradise, but fighting and clawing their way up to become beings of disembodied power is nothing if not dramatic. If this does not capture the imagination, I do not know what will. If you really want a view of the world that is boring and pedantic, I do not know where you would find one. But if we are not willing to exclude a view because it captures the imagination, we must at least consider the possibility of a true myth.

A Touch of Humor - The Hierarchy

2011-12-19T11:00:00.000-08:00

Is there a danger of using God as a means to get what we want? How can we avoid this?

A Voice from the Past - Chesterton

2011-12-16T14:00:00.000-08:00

Any agnostic or atheist whose childhood has known a real Christmas has ever afterwards, whether he likes it or not, an association in his mind between two ideas that most of mankind must regard as remote from each other; the idea of a baby and the idea of unknown strength that sustains the stars.His instincts and imagination can still connect them, when his reason can no longer see the need of the connection; for him there will always be some savior of savour of religion about the mere picture of a mother and a baby; some hint of mercy and softening about the mere mention of the dreadful name of God.

G. K. Chesterton, 1874-1936, The Everlasting Man; Part II: On the Man Called Christ, Chapter I: The God in the Cave (Dover Publications Inc., 2007, pp. 164-165)

Does this make sense? If so what are the implications?

Impacting All of Culture

2011-12-15T14:00:00.000-08:00

It is said that we as Christians need to impact all of life. I agree that this is true, but we need to understand what it means. The Christian church, the body of all true believers, needs to impact all of life as we go out into the world. But part of the problem is that once you get beyond the things the Scripture states and commands, there becomes a question not only of Christian principles but of practical considerations. One thing we need to beware of is the confusion of Scriptural requirements with pragmatic methods. We also need to be careful of involving the organizational church in something that is not part of direct Christian obedience and thus confusing the two. There are things that are very clearly required by Scripture, such as helping the poor and needy, which the organizational church can be involved in directly (Acts 4:32-35; 1 Timothy 5:3-15; James 2:15,16), though not to the detriment of its obligation to instruct people in God's truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11-15; 2 Timothy 4:1-4). A good example of this in Acts 6, where they tried to carefully balance the demands of meeting people's needs with the ministry of the word and prayer.

But there are other cases where we are best served by other organizations, which are parts of the universal church involved in a specialized purpose. This may even involve making common cause with unbelievers to accomplish common goals. We are called to be the light of the world and have an effect on those around us (Matthew 5:13-16; Philippians 2:14-16; Ephesians 5:7-17). But we need to be careful in the process not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:1,2; 1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4). We need to be careful of confusing our Christianity with other issues God does not speak on. We need Christian politicians and political activists doing what they think best within the context of their Christian instruction. We need Christian artists who express themselves within a Christian context. Christian scientists doing science from a Christian context. And if past experience is any guide, this is a hard thing to do without compromise. But there are some things we can do to help. We need to be careful of putting people on too high a pedestal, or we are in danger of encouraging pride and a fall (Proverbs 16:18; 11:2; Romans 12:3). But we should also be careful of too easily criticizing and doing so with the wrong spirit (Galatians 6:1; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Hebrews 12:12-13). But rather let all us consider how to be lights in the place we are, whether it is seen as prominent or obscure from the world's point of view.

The Fanastic

2011-12-14T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

How should a Christian deal with the various claims of fantastic things in the world? These could include such things as UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. How are we to explain them? Now for the Christian, there are certain things that can be eliminated as contrary to Christian teaching; (ghosts conflict with the Biblical picture of the afterlife; see Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:19-31). There may be others which have been given a pseudo-spiritual significance; (some beliefs in UFOs fall into this category). But we are still left with the question of what we think of these things.

We can dismiss them as simply mistakes. Someone saw a weather-balloon or an animal moving at a distance and mistook them for something else. This seems a little simplistic to me as an adequate explanation of all sightings. Also, such a mistake is much easier to make if you already have an idea that these things exist. There is also the question of fraud. This undoubtedly also happens. There are people who will do things for notoriety or because they like a good story. However, those who see such things are frowned on as crackpots. While this may indeed be the explanation of a specific case, I question that everyone who claims to have seen such things can simply be written off as a fraud.

They could be a legitimate natural phenomenon. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster could simply be unusual types of animals. (I do not believe Big Foot is the missing link, but it could be an unusual type of ape.) But the fact that the Loch Ness monster never seems to appear when the serious investigators are looking for him makes me cynical. As for UFOs, I tend to lean toward the Klass plasma hypothesis, which makes them a natural phenomena but not extraterrestrial. (This is, they are really an usual type of plasma which is produced under certain conditions, appearing as a large variously-shaped, bright object.) But some such explanation must be considered as a possibility.

Another possibility is that they might be demonic. If we live in a supernatural world, we should not be surprised if we encounter things of supernatural origin. Nor should we be surprised if demonic forces use natural phenomena or impersonate things that do not exist to accomplish their purposes . While I think it is simplistic to assume all such phenomena are demonic, I think it is also simplistic not to consider the demonic as a possibility. Especially in the cases where there is a direction of worship or something that approximates worship, away from God to some other object.

But in the end, each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. I think we should avoid the view that dismisses such things out of hand (often with the attitude that people are stupid) or immediately ascribes them all to the demonic. Let us carefully investigate before jumping to conclusions.

More Spiritual Than God

2011-12-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

Sometimes we can try to be more spiritual than God. Now by spiritual, I do not mean more holy. But I mean more focused on the internal and the immaterial, rather than the external and the physical. God created the physical world (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 42:5: John 1:3). He created us as beings of body and spirit (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 8:4-8; 139:13-16). God became a man to redeem us from our sins (John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:9-18). And our goal is the resurrection of the body (Romans 8:11; Philippians 3:20,21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-28). We are not to confuse Biblical spirituality with the minimizing of the physical (Colossians 2:20-23; 1 Timothy 4:3-5; Titus 1:15). Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the area of the sacraments. While unwilling to do away with them because God has commanded them (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Acts 2:38), we can relegate them to the incidental, just one more thing God has commanded us to do.

This can be a reaction to a real danger. We can go through the external motions of following God without the inner reality (Malachi 1:10; Isaiah 66:3-4; Matthew 6:1-18). Scripture makes it clear that we are saved by faith in Christ (Romans 4;4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9). Therefore, the reality of the sacraments is based on faith (Romans 4:11,12; Acts 16:30-33; John 6:47-58). It is this faith, rather than the person administering them or the exact mode or theory of the ordinances, none of which is taught in Scripture, that is the issue. They are a sign and a seal of that faith (Romans 4:11). This makes them, not one more act of obedience, but the recognition and celebration of what God has done. And while the external act means nothing apart from the inward reality (Romans 2:25-29; 9:6-8; Jeremiah 4:4), it is not to be despised. Now I want to be clear that the focus of faith is not on our own feelings, but on Christ and what He has done for us (1 Peter 2:24,25; Colossians 2:13,14; 2 Corinthians 5:21). If we turn to Christ and rely on Him, we have faith (1 John 5:11-13; John 3:16; Romans 3:21,22).

Now Scripture makes it clear that the ordinances are the normal expression of belonging to Christ (Acts 10:47,48; 16:14,15; 20:7). Now I find it interesting that those who make the sacraments secondary come up with other physical actions as expression of faith, such as walking an aisle or raising a hand or saying a prayer. Now I do not want to condemn any legitimate expression of faith, but it should be noted that these acts have the same possibility of abuse as the ordinances. People can go through the motions and not really mean them. Since we seem to naturally choose physical acts to express our faith, might it not be better to reemphasize the acts God originally commanded? For the physical part of us is something God created and is part of who we are.

A Touch of Humor - The Spirit of Christmas Presents

2011-12-12T11:00:00.000-08:00

How can keeping the commercial aspect of Christmas become a distraction? Is there a way to keep a better balance in this regard?

A Voice from the Past - Athanasius

2011-12-09T14:00:00.000-08:00

And just as a notable wrestler who is great in intelligence and strength does not choose opponents for himself lest he should give suspicion that he is afraid of some opponents, but gives the choice to the power of the spectators, and especially if they are unfriendly, in order that when he has overthrown the one with whom they match him he may be believed to be superior to all; even so the life of all, our Lord and Saviour Christ, did not himself contrive death for his body lest he should appear frightened of a different death, but accepted and endured on the cross that inflicted by others, especially by enemies, which they thought to be fearful, ignominious, and horrible, in order that when it had been destroyed he might be believed to be life, and that the power of death be completely annihilated.

Athanasius, 295-373 AD, The Incarnation of the Word, 24:10-20, (Athanasius, Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione, translated by Robert W, Thomson, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1971, p. 193

Does this make sense of why Christ died the way He did? Are there other explanations? (Athanasius does give others.)

The Dangers of One Man in Charge

2011-12-08T14:00:00.000-08:00

The fundamental issue of the Protestant Reformation was justification by faith, that we are declared righteous before God based on our faith in Christ's death on the cross for us, apart from anything we can do to earn it (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9). The second related issue was the authority of Scripture, that every claim to teach God's truth must be tested by Scripture (Isaiah 8:20; Galatians 1:8,9; Jude 3). But there was another issue which fostered the corruption of the church at that time. That was the putting of the church under the control of a single individual who could not be questioned. There were attempts to deal with this corruption short of the Reformation. There was a movement to make church councils the authority rather than the pope, but this ultimately failed. Or they would require men to swear to make reforms before choosing them as pope. But when they became pope they would absolve themselves from keeping this oath. Now I am convinced it was in God's providence that these limited reforms failed, because the church needed the deeper reform of the Reformation. But there is a principle here of not giving too much power to one person. I do not bring this up just to criticize Roman Catholicism, but to point out that there is danger in giving unquestionable authority to one or a few individuals.

Now I do not want to take away the respect that should be given to good leaders of the past and present. They are a gift for God (Ephesians 4:11), and we are called to submit to those in a position over us (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13). Nor should we go to the opposite extreme of individualism and refuse to listen to the instruction of others (Proverbs 15:22; 1 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 12:3) But no one should place themselves above the Word of God or above correction (Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8,9; 2:11-16). Also, Jesus Christ is the only one we must go through to get to God, and no other should make that claim (1 Timothy 2:5; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 4:14-16). Now I am convinced that, particularly in our modern celebrity culture, it is possible to exalt people to a level where they are seen as unquestionable. This is bad even if the individuals involved are godly people, because we all have our sins and failings and making someone unquestionable perpetuates their bad qualities as well as their good. Also, once such an authority cannot be challenged, bad people can replace the good without hindrance. Those who established the power of the papacy were using it to fight the corruption of the church. But in the end it resulted in worse corruption than they set out to cure. We should respect those leaders worthy of it, but we should regard no one as above correction.

The Bethesda Factor

2011-12-07T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

Does God always heal if we just have enough faith? Jesus came to the Pool of Bethesda and found a crowd of sick people (John 5:1-17). But Jesus approached and healed only one of them. There is no indication that this individual had any high degree of faith (he was looking to be healed by being dipped in the pool). But Jesus only approached this one man. Now there are cases where it says Jesus healed all the sick brought to Him (Matthew 8:16; 12:15; Luke 4:40), but it is clearly speaking of those who happened to be there at that day and time. But as Bethesda shows, Jesus could also be selective. We see this even more clearly in the case of the Apostle Paul. Paul had a consistent record of praying for people and having them be healed (Acts 19:11,12), and he continued to do so at least till the near end of the book of Acts (Acts 28:1-10) and most probably beyond it. Yet he could not obtain healing for himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) or Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-30), or Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), or Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20).

Therefore, God does not heal in every case nor has He ever healed in every case. Now many who believe healing has passed away at the present time seem to believe that in New Testament times, God did always heal, and now He has ceased doing it. But I would suggest that while God still heals today (and I see no basis in Scripture for believing He does not), He never healed in every case. Now it is true that faith is a factor in whether an individual is healed (Matthew 13:58; 9:22; Mark 2:5). Though the one case where the disciples failed to accomplish a miracle (it was casting out a demon rather than a healing), Jesus rebuked the disciples for lack of faith, not the demonized boy or his father (Matthew 17:14-20). He then cast out the demon based on the father's shaky faith (Mark 9:14-29). But though faith is a factor, it is also clear that there is in healing a matter of God's will, and to assume that God will heal everyone if they only have enough faith is simplistic. Therefore, we should pray to God that He will heal people but be willing to accept the fact that there may be cases where it is God's will not to heal. And we should avoid jumping to the conclusion that if someone is not healed it is because of their lack of faith.

Do We Really Believe It?

2011-12-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

It is easy to mouth words. We as Christians claim we are sinners saved by grace. But do we mean it? Do we really believe we are sinners (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9), who could only be saved by Christ's paying the price for our sins (1 Peter 2:24,25; Colossians 2:13,14; 2 Corinthians 5:21)? Or do we really believe deep inside that we are good people, who knowing God has made maybe a little better? I do not speak this to condemn others, as if I were innocent. When I examine my own motives, I find that I must constantly fight the idea that I am not all that bad. But the question might be asked, is that not what I was back then? Now that I am Christian, surely I can put that behind me and claim to now be able to be acceptable to God through my good deeds. But what does the Scripture say? It says that nothing good dwells in me and that I fall short of the good I try to do (Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:7-25; 8:8 ). (Many would say that the struggle in Romans 7 refers to the unbeliever or carnal Christian, but it is in the present tense and concludes in 7:25 with a statement that the struggle still exists.) We are told not to consider ourselves as having attained it, but to press on with Christ (Philippians 3:12-16; 1 John 1:8-10; Hebrews 12:1,2). We are told that apart from God we are not able to do anything and that it is only through His power working in our life that we can live for God (John 15:5; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Ephesians 2:10). It is not that we are basically good people, as our society would teach us, but we are those destitute of our own goodness, who need God to forgive us (Romans 8:33,34; 3:24-26; Ephesians 1:7) and change us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29).

What is the result of this outlook on life? We will trust in God not only for our salvation (Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 4:4,5; Philippians 3:8,9), but also for all of life (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Hebrews 11:6). I will be motivated to live for God, not to impress Him or to earn anything from Him, but out of love for Him for a salvation already received (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Galatians 5:13). Also, we will not be motivated to look down on other people because we regard them as sinners, but we will realize that we are sinners even as they are (Luke 7:36-50; 19:10; Matthew 9:11-13). The basis for all this is humility, and this comes from an honest assessment of who I am (Romans 12:16; 1 Corinthians 13:4-6; Luke 22:24-27). It is then that I can put my life in perspective. So the question remains, do we mean what we say?

A Touch of Humor - The Holiday Celebration

2011-12-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

How important is it to be concerned with issues like Christmas creches? How involved should we be in such issues?

A Voice from the Past - Augustine of Hippo

2011-12-02T14:00:00.000-08:00

But all are gifts of my God; it was not I who gave them me; and good these are, and these together are myself. Good, then, is He that made me, and He is my good; and before Him will I exult for every good which of a boy I had. For it was my sin, that not in Him, but in His creatures -- myself and others -- I sought for pleasures, sublimities, truths, and so fell headlong into sorrows, confusions, errors. Thanks be to Thee, my joy and my glory and my confidence, my God, thanks be to Thee for Thy gifts; but do Thou preserve them to me. For so wilt Thou preserve me, and those things shall be enlarged and perfected, which Thou hast given me, and I myself shall be with Thee, since even to be Thou has given me.

Augustine of Hippo, 354-430 AD, Confessions, Book I, Section 31 (translated E. B. Pusey, Barnes &; Noble Books, 1999. p. 21)

Is this the right attitude toward God? How would it affect the way we live our lives?

To Paddle or Not to Paddle?

2011-12-01T14:00:00.000-08:00

How should Christians approach living for Christ? Is it active or passive? I can see the main thing as my working hard to become more like Christ. This takes my focus off Christ and puts it on what I do. I end up relying on my own self-control and often being frustrated at my inadequacies. The proponents of the opposing view have likened this to being required to paddle our own canoe. It leads to either self-righteousness or discouragement. But Scripture says the Holy Spirit is at work in us to transform us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29). It says God has given us the power we need to accomplish His purposes (2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Ephesians 2:10; 2 Peter 1:3). It claims God has given us the victory (2 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:37; 1 John 5:4,5). This does not sound like being left to paddle our own canoe.

The opposite is to advocate a state of passive surrender: I should give myself over to God, and He will take it from there. This is like having a motor on the boat; I turn it on and it takes me where I want to go. The problem is that it is not quite that simple. What I have found is that when I take that first step, I am still me and am still faced with living my life out, day by day, by making specific choices. And if my life fails to reflect what is promised by this method, I must conclude that I am doing the first step wrong and become discouraged. Or if I can convince myself I do live up to it, I can think I have arrived spiritually, which leads to complacency. Scripture, however, likens the Christian life to a battle (Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Timothy 2:3,4; 2 Corinthians 10:4-6). It likens the spiritual life to training and to competing in an athletic event (Hebrews 12:1,2; 1 Timothy 4:7,8; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27). It also pictures growth in Christ as a process that takes place over time (Hebrews 5:12-14; Philippians 3:12-16; Colossians 2:19). This does not sound like surrendering one's self, with God taking it from there.

How then can these be brought together? The key issue Scripturally is, what am I trusting in (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Isaiah 40:29-31)? None of the promises of the Spirit's working in our life are conditional for the Christian. But we are still required to respond to them (Galatians 5:16; Romans 6:12-14; Ephesians 5:18). Returning to the boat analogy, God's power is the current that carries us along. We do paddle to direct the boat down the center of the current. But if we try to paddle forward, expecting to get ahead of the current, we will simply wear ourselves out . But we can, if we choose paddle hard against the current and slow our progress toward who God wants us to be. But we did not make the current and cannot start it or stop it.

Leap of Faith?

2011-11-30T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues".

What is faith? It is one of the most variously defined words in the world. In fact, there are so many different versions of what it is that it is clear if one is correct, many others are not. More importantly, what is the Scriptural definition? First and foremost, faith is faith in God (Hebrews 11:6) and not other things (Psalms 20:7; Isaiah 42:17). Also, faith is not against reason (Scripture gives reasons to believe; see 1 Corinthians 15:1-11), but against sight (2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 1:1). We need to have faith to believe God's promises even if we do not currently possess them (Romans 4:18-21). Faith is therefore not faith in faith or a leap of faith into darkness, but reliance on God, whose truth we know.

We are also promised great things through faith the size of a mustard seed (Matthew 17:20), which is a seed known for its smallness. Now certainly, the presence of faith is relevant (Matthew 13:58), but the chief word for doubting in the New Testament is a strong word "to waver". It pictures someone actually fluctuating back and forth between two opinions (James 1:6-8), not someone who has an occasional doubt pass through their head. One example of God's graciousness, even when our faith is imperfect, is Acts 12:1-19. Herod Antipas puts to death James the son of Zebedee and throws Peter into prison. The church calls together a prayer meeting to petition God for Peter's release. So God sends an angel, who rescues Peter from prison. Then Peter goes to the house where they are praying for his freedom and knocks on the door. And when the maid runs into the gathering and tells them Peter is at the door, they do not believe her. It is only when Peter, after much knocking, is let in that they recognize it is really him. I am convinced God often does things for us in spite of our imperfect faith.

I am therefore convinced that faith is not a mental exercise; it is not a state of mind we work up; it is not an indefinable experience that flies in the face of reason. It is, rather, our imperfect reliance on the promises of God, even though we do not see them now. And if we have even a spark of a real faith, God will meet us there.

A Touch of Humor - The Usher

2011-11-28T11:00:00.000-08:00

How important are some of the things we divide over? Where should the boundaries be drawn?

A Voice from the Past - Anselm

2011-11-25T14:00:00.000-08:00

I do not endeavor, Oh Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity, for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, -- that unless I believed, I should not understand.

Anselm, 1033-1109, Proslogium, Chapter I (Open Court Press, 1926, translator Sidney Norton Deane, p. 22)

Is this the proper approach? How would it affect how we live?

Sacrifice of Praise

2011-11-24T14:00:00.000-08:00

Dancing in the Dungeon

2011-11-23T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues".

Sometimes the best thing to do in a difficult time is to rejoice in God and praise Him. Paul and Silas were in a jail in Philippi and were praying and singing hymns of praise (Acts 16:22-25). I do not believe this was because Paul and Silas were super-spiritual and did not feel the difficulties of their situation, but because they did and rejoiced in response. We are told rejoicing is an appropriate response to trouble (James 1:2-4; Matthew 5:11,12) and that we can rejoice in the Lord even if the situation is dark (Philippians 4:4). I remember a time when the church I was in was going through tough times. An accusation had been made against the pastor and it had to be dealt with. I remember shortly after I learned of this doing what I call my "prayer dance." It consists of playing praise music and praying as I dance to the music. I have often felt God's presence powerfully in these sessions. Afterward, my wife kiddingly asked me if I had enjoyed myself. I replied this was not a dance of joy but a dance of defiance. I was dancing despite the situation and everything that principalities and powers could throw at us as a church. Sometimes when the times get tough, the best thing to do is rejoice and praise God (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

Getting Out the Vote

2011-11-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

What should be the position of the Christian regarding politics? Should we be involved or not? Should we support a particular political party? Are we denying the faith if we do not support that party? How do we untangle this mess? I have found a distinction made by C. S. Lewis useful in dealing with this issue. Christianity lays down certain moral principles, goals on what constitutes justice, but it does not say what practical methods will best achieve those goals. There are in politics a considerable number of pragmatic questions involved in how to get the right things done. Now there may be certain practical approaches which are wrong in themselves, even if done to achieve appropriate moral goals, but even among acceptable methods there is disagreement as to what is best. Also, when it comes down to voting, there is the question of the character and competence of the person running. It does no good to elect people who claim they will do something but are unable to or change their position afterward.

I am convinced that abortion (Psalms 139:13,14; 51:5; Exodus 20:13), homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Matthew 19:4-6), and pornography (Matthew 5:27,28; Exodus 20:17; 1 Thessalonians 4:4,5) are wrong Biblically. But whether we should have laws regarding them and exactly what kind of laws can be a practical problem. When you factor in what is the best way to get these laws enacted, given constitutional and legal questions, it becomes even more complicated. But these are fairly straightforward. I am convinced Biblically that racism is wrong (Acts 17:26; James 3:9-12; Colossians 3:11). But the best way to deal with it, affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, or some other method, may be debatable. I do believe that the Bible lays down principles in the area of economics, but what should be done there on a practical level may difficult to determine. Therefore, those who agree with me on my Scriptural understanding (there are of course those who would dispute it) can end up disagreeing on specific political conclusions.

Also, we need to remember that while the law does have a function in restraining evil (Romans 13:1-7; Proverbs 14:34; Deuteronomy 13:11), even God's Law cannot by itself produce a true change of heart (Romans 3:19,20; 7:7-18; 5:20). I am convinced there is a place for Christians to work for good laws and a better condition of our society. But we must avoid the illusion that if we just pass a few of the right laws we will end up with an upright nation that follows God. The problem runs deeper than that, and it is only by convincing individuals of Christian truths and Christian moral principles that we can hope to change the moral direction of our society. But that does not mean Christians should not do whatever they can to positively affect the political process.

A Touch of Humor - Thanksgiving Question

2011-11-21T11:00:00.000-08:00

Do we tend to measure our thankfulness to God in terms of material benefits? Should we?

A Voice from the Past - Ambrose

2011-11-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

If any one takes heed in this, he will be mild, gentle, modest. For in guarding his mouth, and restraining his tongue, and in not speaking before examining, pondering, and weighing his words -- as to whether this should be said, that should be answered, or whether it be a suitable time for this remark -- he certainly is practicing modesty, gentleness, patience.

Ambrose, 340-397, Duties of the Clergy, Book I, Chapter IV, Paragraph 14 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume X, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, T & T Clark and Eerdmans, 1997, translated by Rev. H. De Romestin, p. 3)

How important is it to watch what we say? How can we go about this?

The Carey Conundrum

2011-11-17T14:00:00.000-08:00

The story of William Carey is used to show that predestination and evangelism are contrary to each other. Carey was advocating missions and was told to sit down; when God was ready to save the heathen He would do it without Carey's assistance. But what are the facts of this case?

Now Carey was a Calvinist and believed in predestination. Therefore, this is, at worst, a debate between Calvinists over what Calvinism means. Further, there was an extreme view of Calvinism (called hyper-Calvinism by the standard Council-of-Dort-affirming Calvinism), which may have been involved in this disagreement. Now I would be willing to leave things here as a debate among Calvinists and simply say I support William Carey's form of Calvinism. But the truth is more complicated then that.

The scene was a pastor's conference presided over by the elder John Ryland. (There were two John Rylands involved: the younger, who was Carey's friend and supporter, and the elder, who was his father.) William Carey and his friend Thomas Chisholm had just been ordained as ministers. The elder Ryland asked the newest members of the group to propose a subject for discussion. Chisholm suggested discussing a passage in 2 Peter, but the elder Ryland told him to look it up in John Gill. Then Carey asked if the command to preach the gospel to the heathen did not last until the end of the world, since the accompanying promise was to that extent (see Matthew 28:19,20). And the elder Ryland replied .... It is not really clear what the elder Ryland replied. The elder Ryland never remembered what he had said. Chisholm accused him of claiming that a restoration of the gift of tongues was necessary to take the gospel to the heathen. (The younger Ryland denied his father said this, but I have not seen the exact words of the denial.) The common version, "Sit down young man, when God gets ready to save the heathen He will do it without your help or mine," was from Jonathan Marshall, who knew Carey in India, at a time when Carey himself admits he did not remember exactly what was said. But the bigger question is what was meant.

Carey wrote a pamphlet called An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians To Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. He told the younger Ryland that it responded to the elder Ryland's objections. It does not mention Calvinism. It does deal with God's command, which is the portion he claimed referred to the elder Ryland's objection. But the main part of the pamphlet deals with practical objections: where will we get the money; the heathen will eat us; and similar questions. The issue does not seem to be doctrinal but practical: how would such an endeavor be possible? And Carey's chief virtue was being willing to trust God to accomplish such things. But doctrine does not seem to be the main issue.

Christian Malpractice

2011-11-16T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues".

There are many people in the world who are victims of Christian theological malpractice. This consists in telling people that if they come to Christ they will have no real problems and will be happy all the time. I am not simply talking here of the health and wealth gospel, though they are the worst offenders. There are multitudes of other approaches which, though they do not go as far, nonetheless teach that Jesus is some kind of happiness pill which, if you take, you will not feel pain anymore. And when people find out this does not really work, they write off Christianity as a piece of false advertising. (Many times such people have never really been saved because they have never really dealt with the basic issues of sin and forgiveness. But even if they are saved, they can end up struggling in their walk with God.) We set them up for a fall. Is this really what the Scripture teaches?

The Bible says we should expect trouble (John 16:33; Acts 14:22; 2 Corinthians 1:4-7) and opposition (2 Timothy 3:12; John 15:18-21; 16:1-4). The Christian life is pictured as a battle (Ephesians 6:10-13; 2 Timothy 2:3.4; 1 Timothy 6:12) and an athletic contest (Hebrews 12:1-3; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 2:5). Now we are able to put these things in perspective because we know what our ultimate goal will be (2 Corinthians 4:17,18; Romans 8:18; Revelation 21:4) and know God is using the trials we go through to make us into the people that God wants us to be (James 1:2-4; Romans 5:3-5; 8:28,29). As Christians, we have reason to rejoice (John 15:11) in who God is (Philippians 4:4), in our hope of salvation (Romans 5:2; 12:12; Philippians 3:3), in the fact God hears our prayers (John 16:24), and even in our suffering for Christ's sake (Matthew 5:12; Acts 5:41). But all this, as I said, is a matter of perspective. To sell Jesus by the Madison Avenue method is to set both you and your converts up for failure. You may show superficial success, but you will not be doing what God has genuinely called you to do. And you will be in danger of producing disciples like the seed that falls on rocky soil and sprouts up quickly but withers at the first sign of trouble (Mark 4:16,17).

The Things We Think We Know

2011-11-15T14:00:00.000-08:00

Many claim to know all the details of the Second Coming of Christ. In the same way many thought they had figured out the First Coming but were clueless when it happened (John 7:25-53; Matthew 2:4-6; John 9:13-34). Even the disciples who followed Jesus seemed to be unclear on what was happening until after the resurrection (Mark 9:10; John 16:29-32; Matthew 16:21-23). Now it is clear from Scripture that Jesus is coming back (Acts 1:10,11; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:3-13). It is also clear that this coming will be blatant and obvious and even the unbelievers will recognize it (Matthew 24:23-31; Revelation 6:15-17; 16:9). This eliminates the idea of a mysterious spiritual coming. But up to the time when it becomes obvious, Scripture makes it clear we will not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36-51; Acts 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3). (The passage in 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8 does not say believers will not be surprised because we know the time, but because we are always alert.) The point is that until the clear-cut fulfillment of the prophecies, we should always be prepared but will never be certain.

Now we are told of the sign of the man of sin seating himself in the temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12; Matthew 24:15; Revelation 11:1,2). This has been interpreted as many different things, from the destruction of the Jewish temple by Titus, to the papacy, to various individuals up to the present day. As it is given as a sign, I would see it as involved in the blatant arrival of the Second Coming, and perhaps we should wait until this occurs before reaching a definite conclusion. (There is also the question of whether the temple is the church or a physical temple in Palestine. I would prefer a physical temple, as there have been so many apostasies in the history of the Christian church it would be difficult to know which one is referred to. Another sign, depending on your theology, may be the creation of the nation of Israel (Romans 11:25-32; Matthew 24:16-21; Revelation 11:8-13). But even if we consider it relevant (and I do), apart from fanciful interpretations it does not indicate a time table. All we can say is that salvation is nearer to us then it was before 1948 (Romans 13:11). As for Matthew 24:1-14, I would take it as warning against regarding every war or disaster or persecution or instance of false teaching as a sign, because these are the beginning of birth-pangs and the end is not yet. There are difficult things here, and while I certainly would not discourage people from studying them (2 Timothy 3:16,17), perhaps this is not something we should be dogmatic about or divide over. For I suspect when it happens we will all be wrong. Including me.

A Touch of Humor - The Tithe Talk

2011-11-14T11:00:00.000-08:00

Is it wrong for a pastor to speak about giving money to the church? How should such things be handled?

A Voice from the Past - Gregory the Great

2011-11-11T14:00:00.000-08:00

But, on the other hand, those who understand indeed aright the words of the Law, but speak them not humbly, are to be admonished, that, in divine discourses, before they put them forth to others, they should examine themselves; lest in following up the deeds of others, they leave themselves behind; and lest, while while thinking rightly of all the rest of Holy Scripture, this only thing they attend not to, what is said in it against the proud. For he is indeed a poor and unskilful physician, who would fain heal another's disease while ignorant of that from which he himself is suffering.

Gregory the Great, 540-604 AD, Pastoral Rule, Part III, Chapter 24 (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Volume XII, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, T & T Clark and Eerdmans, 1997, translator Rev. James Barmby, p. 52)

How great a problem is it to be right, but be proud about it? How do we avoid this?

The Christian and Economics

2011-11-10T14:00:00.000-08:00

What does the Bible say about economics? Should Christians be capitalists, socialists, or something else? Now this may seem like an abstract intellectual question, but it is a practical question that affects our attitude about and use of money. There are two basic principles that are involved in this issue. The Bible teaches a work ethic and business ethic. It says we should be willing to work for a living and be diligent in the work we are given to do (2 Thessalonians 3:10; Proverbs 6:6-11; Colossians 3:23,24). But those in business need to be concerned about how they treat their customers and their employees (Amos 8:4,5; Proverbs 11:1; James 5:1-6, Deuteronomy 24:14,15 ). Now these are principles; I do not think we can absolutely define what constitutes a just wage or a just price from the price of salt or some other commodity. But I also do not think we are allowed to all follow our greed and somehow this will come out right in the end (1 Timothy 6:9,10; Colossians 3:5; Matthew 6:19-24). The issue is not one of greed but of justice. The person who puts in a good day's work deserves to be paid. The person who provides a useful commodity or service deserves to be paid for it. The idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds noble, but it cuts through the just connection between effort and reward.

But there is another principle: that we are to help the poor and helpless and those in need (Proverbs 19:17; Luke 14:12-14; Galatians 2:10). This in many ways balances out the first principle; it is mercy to the first one's justice. Now nowhere do we get the idea that if a person is in need, it is necessarily their own fault (John 9:1-4; Job 1,2; Isaiah 53:4-6). And even if they are to blame for their situation, God calls for mercy to those who do not deserve it (Matthew 5:43-48; 9:10-13; Luke 19:10). There is a careful balance here with the first principle, but there must be a balance. Now there is a place for some government provisions to help those in need (Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 15:7-14) or at least guarantee they will be treated fairly (Exodus 23:6-8; Leviticus 19:15; Proverbs 14:31). But the main source of help should be from those who give (Psalms 41:1; 1 John 3:17; James 2:15,16). Further, this is to be done willingly and not under compulsion (2 Corinthians 9:5-7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; Acts 5:4).

It is easy to try to palm off all the economic issues on government. But it makes a difference if we live and handle money based on justice and mercy or whether we approach it based on greed. This is true whether we are wealthy business people or poor people who are looking to redistribute the wealth of others. Living based purely on self-centeredness is wrong and results in problems, whatever society does.

Confusion on Confrontation

2011-11-09T14:00:00.000-08:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues".

I have seen many cases of Christians trying to correct one another. And it seems to miscarry as often as not. How do we correct a fellow believer?

The fundamental issue is that our goal should be that of correction and reconciliation; we are to win our brother, not drive them away (Matthew 18:15; Galatians 6:1; Hebrews 12:12,13). We need to start with direct personal confrontation (Matthew 18:15). This does not mean to tell someone else or to try to get someone else to talk to them, but to go to them yourself. There is a reason for this. The goal is to restore the person (the word in Galatians 6:1 is used of setting a broken bone or mending a fishing net) and to restore the relationship. This may not be possible without explaining where you are coming from and perhaps instructing them in the issues. You also need to hear their defense; even if you cannot agree with it, you need to show them you have heard it. Also, if there is reconciliation they need to know you are reconciled and are not still angry with them behind their backs. None of this can be done through a third party. Now I do believe there is a place for invoking love covering a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). But if it is serious enough that it must be dealt with, it should be dealt with properly.

Also, it may be necessary to bring in witnesses, either to attest to their lack of repentance (Matthew 18:16) or to establish the fact of their actions (1 Timothy 5:19). Now these witnesses need to be two or three (Numbers 35:30) and to be open and public witnesses who can testify to the actual facts of the case. In the Old Testament the witnesses were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7) and, if false, were liable to the punishment they tried to get imposed on the accused (Deuteronomy 19:15-19). No anonymous or second-hand witnesses should be accepted.

But everything must be done with gentleness (Galatians 6:1; Hebrews 12:12,13). This does not mean we should ignore or minimize sin (1 Corinthians 5:1,2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6), but we must attempt to turn the sinner back to the right way. Even if the church is required to take the final step and exercise discipline (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:3-8), it should be done lovingly, with the hope for restoration (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11). Confronting sin is a difficult task. It should not be undertaken lightly, but it is also dangerous to ignore, if it is necessary. We need to trust God to lead us in the right way to handle these situations. We also need to look to ourselves, that we are not drawn down into the errors of the people we are correcting (Galatians 6:1, Jude 22,23). But we must be careful to approach the situation in a Biblical manner if we hope to genuinely restore people.

Are We Arrogant to Believe We Are Right

2011-11-08T14:00:00.000-08:00

It is commonly claimed that Christians are arrogant to claim they have the truth. But does this make sense? In other areas of knowledge to find what is true is not arrogant but reasonable. No one claims you are arrogant for believing that two plus two equals four, force equals mass times acceleration, or George Washington was the first president of the United States. Would you drive a car or ride in an airplane built by someone who did not have the arrogance to build them the right way? It is only in theology and ethics that such claims are made. But I see no reason for applying to these areas a principle that would be regarded as foolishness in any other area. Why should we believe that God will accept anything we choose to offer as obedience to Him any more than we would assume we can mix any two chemicals together without ever having them react?

Now it is possible to believe in this God who will accept anything you believe about him and any lifestyle you choose, though he is certainly not the Christian God (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Isaiah 43:10,11). But is it not just as arrogant to claim this understanding of God is correct as it is to claim the Christian understanding is correct? In fact, it seems even more arrogant, as it tramples over the universal human tendency to hold that certain things are right and others are wrong. It also goes against the general principles people have historically lived by, which hold there are fixed moral standards and right ways to worship God. Now this does not prove that this idea of God false, but it does mean that it cannot just be assumed to be true, resulting in labeling anyone who questions it as arrogant. If anything, it seems highly implausible that God should be totally indifferent to how we live our lives and how we worship Him. In fact, I rather suspect that that many who hold this view, when confronted, would admit that they have limitations on the kind of behavior that they believe God finds acceptable. They simply have a specific view of God that contradicts the Christian idea of God. Or there may be some who make this argument who would deny or question that God exists. But again, they are holding to a specific viewpoint and claiming that their view is right and the Christian view is wrong. But they are no less arrogant for claiming it does not matter what you believe about God than the Christian is to claim that it does. The same principle applies in ethics. It is no more arrogant to assert a certain behavior is wrong than to claim it is all right to do it. In the final analysis, there are various views of what is correct in theology and we need to determine which is the right one. But the idea that someone is arrogant for holding a particular position is simply a red herring.

A Touch of Humor - Guilt by Association

2011-11-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

Is there a danger in the church of dividing into cliques? How do we prevent it?

A Voice from the Past - Tertullian

2011-11-04T14:00:00.000-07:00

The oftener we are mowed down by you , the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.

Tertullian, 145-220 AD, Apology, Chapter 50 (The Antenicene Fathers, translated by S Thelwall, T & T Clarke and Eerdmans, 1997, p.55)

Is this still true today? How should it affect how we live?

Humbled Himself

2011-11-03T14:00:00.000-07:00

Aletheia Rolls On

2011-11-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues".

There was a great vehicle built by the All-Sufficient One before the dawn of time. She had huge treads made to move mountains and strong armor to defect flaming darts, but there was no lock on the door and it opened to all who would come (though it was said you only came if driven aboard by the Breath of the All-Sufficient One). She was painted with the colors of the rainbow, the colors of grace, and held together by the blood of the Lamb. She was powered by the Breath of the All-Sufficient One, which was said to be one of the forms of the All-Sufficient One Himself. She was dubbed Aletheia, though she was also know as Euangelion or Soteria. She rolled forth into the world with the full blessing and power of her Master.

While she had traveled since ancient times, she rolled out into the full light of history in obscure places. A feeding trough for cattle, a fisherman's boat, a place of execution, and a tomb strangely missing its occupant. When she reached public attention it was with a blaze of mighty words and mighty works, and she was immediately opposed. Many of those on board were harassed and killed, but they lost only their physical lives and reached their destination quicker. And Aletheia rolled on.

Later, she became popular, and many lauded her and extolled her beauty. Even those who would not come on board applauded her approach and cheered as she passed. But many both on board and off fought to control her, though only her Master had access to the cockpit. They tried to obscure her colors of grace and to use her to make profit and justify many shady schemes. But Aletheia rolled on.

Then came the great wars of control when many fought over who would possess her. Those on board all huddled together in their little cliches in various parts of her passenger area. And many built their own imitations of her and traveled off in their own directions. And many both on and off board feared, hated, and even killed those of the other cliches. And Aletheia rolled on.

Then came the time when many rejected her; they hated her and avoided her and argued against her. Those who were on board were shunned and sometimes even tortured and killed. They were demeaned as stupid and uneducated for staying aboard such an obsolete vehicle. Those on board responded to the criticisms with logic and persuasion, and some were convinced to come on board, but many stayed off to follow the crowd. Some of those on board became seriously concerned and took up clubs and fought those off board in order to protect the vehicle. Many came back beaten and bruised, but those who did not proclaimed victory and said the safety of the vehicle was their doing. But Aletheia rolled on.

One might almost suspect she knew where she was going.

On Teaching Children

2011-11-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

Are we raising our children to be little moralists? If we look at what is commonly taught children, most of it consists of commandments. Now there is a place in the Christian life for the teaching of how we should live. But this must be done in the context of God's truth and God's grace. If not, we are guilty of teaching only law, and law without grace is always destructive (2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Romans 7:7-13; Galatians 3:10-14). Now there moralistic teaching, and it is often hard to find ones that emphasize grace. (There can be the same problem with adult curricula, but it is easier with adults to ignore the standard curricula and take another approach.) It can be difficult to find curricula that are grace-oriented, but the attempt must be made. I am cynical of George Barna's claim we are losing our children. Rodney Stark has put up serious challenges to this claim. But to the extent we are, the probable culprit is that we teaching them moralistic platitudes rather than Christian truth.

A Touch of Humor - Scary Costumes

2011-10-31T11:00:00.000-07:00

Are people of the world scared of Christians? Why is this so, and can anything be done about it?

A Voice from the Past - Writer of Epistle to Diognetus

2011-10-28T14:00:00.000-07:00

The Almighty Himself, the Creator of the universe, the God whom no eye can discern, has sent down His very own Truth from heaven, His own holy and incomprehensible Word, to plant it among men and ground it in their hearts. To this end He has not, as one might imagine, sent to mankind some servant of His, some angel or prince; it is none of the great ones of the earth, nor even one of the vice-regents of heaven. It is no other than the universal Artificer and Constructor Himself, by whose agency God made the heavens and set the seas their bounds; whose mystic word the elements of creation submissively obey; by whom the sun is assigned the limits of his course by day, and at whose command by night the obedient moon unveils her beams, and each compliant star follows circling in her train. Ordainer, Disposer, and Ruler of all things is he; of heaven and all that heaven holds, of earth and all that is in earth, of sea and every creature therein; of fires, ether, and bottomless pit; of things above, and things below, and things in the midst. Such was the Messenger God sent to men.

Writer of The Epistle to Diognetus, The Epistle to Diognetus, approximately 124 AD, Section 7 (Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin Books, 1968, p. 178)

What are the implications of this statement? What does it mean for our lives?

Beside the Church

2011-10-27T14:00:00.000-07:00

What does it mean for a ministry to be parachurch? And is it a good thing or a bad thing? It is claimed that a parachurch organization is an organization alongside the ordinary church. Now the church is the body of all genuine believers in Christ (Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; Ephesians 5:25-29). A parachurch organization may be the church carrying out a particular function, it may be different divisions of the church coming together to meet a specific need, or it may be many other things, but it is still the church.

It is the obligation of the church to teach the whole will of God (Acts 20:27; Matthew 28:20). Now some (though by no means all) parachurch organizations deal with only part of God's teaching on the ground that they are not the church. However, the traditional church organizations have often divided over minor issues (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; Philippians 2:1-4). It is understandable why some would want to avoid getting involved in these questionable disputes. But the solution is not to ignore them, but to ask what things are essential from Scripture. Now there may be a place for groups with differing beliefs to work together for a specific purpose. But this should not be done if it prevents the preaching of truth.

An issue that is commonly evaded is the issue of the sacraments. Again, this is not surprising, as there are many debates here over details. But the ordinances are commanded by God (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26), and on analogy with the Old Testament ordinances are the signs and seals of faith (Romans 4:11). Minimizing these seems questionable. However, while there are real issues here, the traditional church organizations have not only become caught up in detail. They have also also sometimes made an issue of who administers the sacraments, something that Scripture never addresses, though it makes sense they should not be performed in conjunction with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

I am convinced that Scripture does not command a specific form of church government (Deuteronomy 4:2), but there are principles. Parachurch organizations can sometimes put unqualified people in leadership (1 Timothy 3:6) and can take a highly individualistic approach to ministry (Romans 12:4,5). But traditional church organizations can limit leadership to the older members (1 Timothy 4:12) and can see only a few people involved in the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:16).

I have some sympathy with both sides of this dispute. But both sides are Christ's church, and the ideal is for them to come together as that church. But this is not an easy thing to accomplish. Until we do, I think both sides of the debate have useful things to contribute. But we should work to find ways to reintegrate the parts of Christ's body into one church.

Witchcraft

2011-10-26T14:00:00.000-07:00

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues".

What is a witch? Are we to accept the idea of an old crone with a broomstick and a black cat familiar? Or should we look at a follower of the modern practice of Wicca? What does the Bible mean by a witch?

There are various things addressed in Scripture that fall into this category. There is the practice of divination, attempting to determine the future by various means (Acts 16:16-19; Ezekiel 21:21-23), of casting spells (Acts 19:19; Isaiah 47:8-15), of performing wonders by one's own power (Exodus 7:11; Acts 8:9-11), or of being involved in communicating with the dead (1 Samuel 28:3-25; Isaiah 8:19). The underlying principle is the serious practice of magic (as opposed to the stage magician).

Scripturally, God is the only legitimate source of supernatural help. And He cannot be manipulated, only asked. From the Christian viewpoint the main issue is not good intentions versus bad intentions (white versus black magic), but taking to ourselves a power that belongs solely to God. Nor is the issue explicitly worshiping Satan. While I am sure Satan is flattered to be directly worshiped, in the final analysis he does not care who you worship so long as it is not God. While much of it is charlatanism, I do believe Satan and his minions can supply the supernatural power behind serious magic. (Acts 16:16-19 suggests this.) But this is not dependent on the practitioner's consciously following Satan. I know in my youth I dabbled in such things, and it at least seemed to work for me, though only on a small scale. But whether or not it works, it is wrong.

How, then, is the Christian respond to such things? First, we should avoid the use of all such things. I have known Christians to make excuses for such practices. It is also possible to approach spiritual gifts from an attitude of witchcraft, where we start to see them as our personal power rather then depending on God. But we can also become unnecessarily paranoid of witchcraft and everything associated with it. We need to remember that God is victorious over Satan and can protect us (1 John 4:4; Colossians 2:15). Therefore, we should avoid panicking at every mention of witchcraft or reading it in when it is not there. Witchcraft is wrong, but it is no more wrong than many other things our society takes for granted. We should not condone it, but we should face it boldly through faith in Christ.

Witchcraft and Paranoia

2011-10-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

Few things seem to promote a knee-jerk reaction in the evangelical church today more than witchcraft or Satan worship. There is a violent response to anything perceived to be associated with them, like the Harry Potter series. They are associated with hidden conspiracies bent on corrupting our society. This is nothing new.

In the old pagan times, witchcraft was seen as a dangerous reality that helped explain why things went wrong. When someone was sick or there was a destructive storm, perhaps a witch had cast a spell on you and you needed to counteract the spell. While there were undoubtedly some people who dabbled in evil magic, it was more commonly used as a scapegoat. Christianity originally minimized such things, claiming that the powers of demonic forces, though real, were limited and that God was more powerful. Therefore, those accused of such practices were condemned, but not generally severely punished or excessively feared. But many of the old pagan beliefs continued underground and, over time, came to influence nominal Christianity. Satan was perceived as more powerful, but his methods as more crude and those who followed him as more blatantly evil. A key person who helped make accusations for witchcraft a common practice was Philip IV of France (1268-1314). While his motives might be debated, he appears to have used it as a method to smear his enemies by accusing them of various magical and unChristian practices. From there the condemnation of individuals for witchcraft, with all the overtones of paranoia and conspiracy theory, developed into the notorious witch-hunts. Later, in reaction, people jumped to the simplistic theory that there are no witches.

Now whenever you tell people they can obtain great power by doing something, even something regarded as highly objectionable, there is the danger some people will take you up on it. The present sects of witches and Satan worshipers are examples of this. (Note that witches and Satan worshipers are two different groups, but they reflect two differing interpretations of Medieval witchcraft.) But we need to be careful of reading into them the historic fears connected with witchcraft. Therefore, we must remember that God is all- powerful and in control of the world (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28; Isaiah 43:13). Also, while I am sure it flatters Satan to have people actually worship him, any belief which people embrace other then the truth of God is following Satan (Ephesians 2:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Hebrews 2:14,15). All idolatry is the worship of demons (1 Corinthians 10:20), and the putting of the things of this earth before God is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Therefore, while witchcraft cannot be condoned from a Christian point of view, neither should it be regarded as more evil than the multitude of other non-Christian choices available in our culture. While we must stand for the truth, we must do it with gentleness and love and not be carried away by fear (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Colossians 4:5,6).

A Touch of Humor - Sunday Best

2011-10-24T11:00:00.000-07:00

What is reverence? What should genuine reverence look like?

A Voice from the Past - John Calvin

2011-10-21T14:00:00.000-07:00

For, first of all, the pious mind does not devise for itself any kind of God, but looks alone to the one true God; nor does it feign for him any character it pleases, but is contented to have him in the character in which he manifests himself, always guarding with the utmost diligence, against transgressing his will, and wandering, with daring presumption, from the right path.

John Calvin, 1509-1564, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 2, Section 2 (translated by Henry Beveridge, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973, p. 41)

Is this true? What should it mean for our approach to God?

Glitz and Glitter

2011-10-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

If we believe it is the power of God that brings people to Christ (John 6:44; 1 Corinthians 2:1-4; 3:6,7), how should that affect our approach to evangelism? I am not even here primarily talking about predestination and free will, though I am convinced God chooses people (Ephesians 1:4,5; Romans 8:29,30; Acts 13:48). But the question is not God's choice versus our choice but the importance of the cleverness of the evangelist. The problem is that there a tendency to rely, not on even if we are doing it wrong. But some methods are geared to produce false converts). There is also the basic issue of honesty. Are we honoring God when we try to do His work in a questionable way? And in the end, if we follow this path we can become superficial imitations of the world. But we cannot beat the world at its own game. It has more resources and more experience in this area then we do. And if we become all glitz and glitter with nothing of substance, what do we have to offer anyone? But the bottom line is, what am I trusting in? Am I trusting in my clever strategies, or am I trusting in God (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6). Because if I am trusting in God, I am more likely to avoid questionable ways of spreading His truth. But if I am trusting in myself, I am likely (perhaps even in desperation) to adopt the approach which seems, at least at this moment, to get the job done.

Psychological Legalism

2011-10-18T14:00:00.000-07:00

It is ironic, but secular legalism can be worse than theological legalism. Most theological legalists will settle for obedience to a set of moral standards. We cannot obey these because we are sinners (Romans 3:23; John 15:5), but they generally are not in principle impossible (Romans 7:7-13). But secular legalism often prescribes things that we may not have any control over. We are required to be successful: to have money, fame, power, and be appealing to the opposite sex. One particular form of secular legalism is connected to the field of psychology.

Now I want to be careful here. There are people who have clear psychological problems that need help. In my opinion the current state of psychology is similar to the state of medicine before the discovery of microbes. It is still trying to establish which parts of its various theories are correct. But I would not discourage such people from looking for help were they can. What the right answers are to these situations may be debated, but there is here a legitimate need. But there is a deeper problem.

Psychology puts forth a standard of a well-adjusted, psychologically normal person. If we do not meet it we have psychological problems that need to be fixed. Given that we are sinners in an imperfect world, it is not surprising we do not meet the standard. Therefore people who do not have serious psychological problems can still have psychological abnormalities that produce feelings of guilt or inadequacy. Now sometimes these can be Biblical sins and need to be dealt with on that basis. If these quirks can be cured on other grounds, I certainly would not forbid someone from doing so. But we should not carry around a load of guilt based on something that is not a Scriptural standard.

This psychological standard is based on being considered normal by others around us. But Scripture states that while there is a place to fit in with society (1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Romans 13:1-7), there is also a place to follow God before what others think (1 John 2:15-17; Acts 4:19,20). Psychology frequently claims we must accept ourselves and let out the true qualities we hide inside. But Scripture says we are sinners and there are things inside us that should not be let out (Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 64:6). Psychology frequently advocates an ideal of independence. While there is a destructive kind of dependence which amounts to idolatry (Isaiah 43:10-13; Romans 1:25; Colossians 3:5), the Biblical standard is one of interdependence (Romans 12:3-8: 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; 1 John 3:13-24). But the big problem with setting up something other than the Biblical standard is that it evades grace. Under the Biblical standard we have forgiveness of our sins in Christ (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 2:13-15; 1 Peter 2:24,25) and God at work in our life to change us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 2:10; Philippians 3:12-14). Therefore, we must avoid erecting a new standard in opposition to the Law of God, or we are placed back into bondage.

A Touch of Humor - The Head Count

2011-10-17T11:00:00.000-07:00

How important are numbers in understanding the health of a church? What is the right perspective on this?

A Voice from the Past - Charles Hodge

2011-10-14T14:00:00.001-07:00

Philosophy, in its widest sense, being the conclusions of the human intelligence as to what is true, and the Bible being the declaration of God, as to what is true, it is plain that where the two contradict each other, philosophy must yield to revelation; man must yield to God.

Charles Hodge, 1787-1878, Systematic Theology, Volume I, Chapter III, section 6, #7 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982, p. 58)

Is this true? What are its implications?

The Evolution of God

2011-10-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

It is dangerous to take a theory that works in one area of knowledge and apply it to another without basis. I question whether the theory of evolution really works in biology. There are serious problems with the theory. But applying it without proof or mechanism to another area of study is illegitimate.One place where this is done is in the area of theology. It is claimed that the idea of God has evolved along certain lines from the simpler to the more complex. But is there any real evidence for this? It is clear that people's concepts of God can change, and we see certain basic ideas recurring. But is there a discernible direction or pattern or some hidden mechanism at work here?

One basis for saying there is such a process is an examination of primitive people. But "primitive people" have been around just as long as civilized people. It may even be argued that they once had a higher technological development and lost it through isolation and disuse. It is not surprising that those who have a similar technological environment would have similar theological beliefs. But in general, in theology you have a number of concepts of God that continuously reappear and trace back either to antiquity or to a particular individual or group that originated them. In theology, as in many other disciplines, it is the rare case when you come across a truly original idea.

Another approach to proving this point is to try to find passages in the Old Testament that show the Jewish people once had a more primitive idea of God. One argument is to take references to the gods, which in the context can be most simply taken as hypothetical, and use them to prove the Hebrews believed in more than one god (Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 8:19; Psalms 95:3). We ourselves frequently speak the same way when we speak of the Greek gods or the Babylonian gods. Paul uses the same kind of language in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 8:5). Also, they are forced to invent complicated theories to explain the composition of the Old Testament because other verses that say there is one God are found in the same contexts (Exodus 34:13-17; Deuteronomy 6:4; 4:32-39). The fact that such complicated maneuvers are needed to maintain a point calls it into question. There is also the attempt to interpret, "You shall have no gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3) to mean that you can have other gods as long as you put God first. There are rare cases where "before" in Hebrew means this, but its normal meaning is "in the presence of," speaking of the presence of God with His people. This whole approach depends on reading things into the passages that are not found there in the most straightforward meaning in context. The whole idea that God evolved seems to be speculation, rather than anything that can be demonstrated.

Quality of Life

2011-10-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

One of the key assumptions in modern western society is our right to quality of life. It colors many of our opinions in areas like abortion and euthanasia. We see it in the recent statement quoted from Pat Robertson about how a man was allowed to divorce his wife, who had Alzheimer's. But as I look in my own heart I find the same tendency coloring my more minor decisions. It is the feeling that I should only be expected to sacrifice a reasonable amount for the good of others and no one can really expect me to do more than that. I am comfortable giving of time and money and other things I want to claim as possessions (though none of this really belongs to me) as long as it does not violate my comfort zone, as long as it is not unreasonable. But what is the Biblical position on this?

Our model here is the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His all to save us from sin (1 John 4:9,10; 2 Corinthians 8:9; John 15:12,13). We are commanded to follow this same pattern of sacrificial love (Romans 12:1; 1 John 3:14-18; Philippians 2:5-11). We are called to live in this way. Now I do need to put in a word of warning. Any good principle may be taken to a distorted extreme. The Scripture says we are supposed to be willing to die for others, but "for" means "for the benefit of." There are those who burn themselves out by taking on more things than they can handle. They need to ask whether these things really benefit the people they are trying to help or whether these people would be helped more by a steady, measured course of ministry rather than burning themselves out by taking on too much at once. Sometimes this seems to come from too much pride in ourselves and our abilities (Romans 12:3; Proverbs 16:18; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6) and insufficient trust in God (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Isaiah 40:11). Now I am convinced there may be a time to burn oneself out in God's service. If meeting the immediate need is more crucial then long-term benefits, this may be necessary. But we need to weigh this carefully. However, I suspect most people are more like me, reluctant to give too much or hurt too much for fear it will damage our lifestyles. Now I do not want to lay a guilt trip on anyone, and it is not my place to determine how much someone else should give in any area. But I do think that God would ask us to consider whether maintaining our quality of life is our primary goal. And if so, we need to reconsider our priorities.

A Touch of Humor - The Chair Game

2011-10-10T11:00:00.000-07:00

Some people put themselves forward, others prefer to stay out of the way in back. Is that a good or a bad thing? Why?

A Voice from the Past - Polycarp

2011-10-07T14:00:00.001-07:00

Faith is the mother of us all; with Hope following in her train, and Love of God and Christ and neighbor leading the way. Let a man's mind be wholly bent on these, and he has fulfilled all the demands of holiness; for to possess Love is to be beyond the reach of sin.

Polycarp, 69-155 AD, Letter to the Philippians, 3 (Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, 1968, Penguin Books, p.145

Is this true? What implications does it have for us today?

Transformation

2011-10-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

The Worship War

2011-10-04T14:00:00.000-07:00

One of the most strident fights in the Christian church today is over styles of worship. Whether it is types of music or degrees of informality, this is an issue that frequently hits a nerve. Nor is this a new issue. Whether disputes over the date of Easter or how many fingers people should cross themselves with, even minor deviations in this area have caused great tumult. What does the Scripture say about this?

We do not find a detailed pattern of worship in the New Testament. God could have prescribed it as He did for the Jewish temple, enforcing exact conformity including the precise recipe for the incense to be burned (Exodus 30:34-36; Leviticus 10:1-3). But as we are given only broad guidelines, we must be careful not to add to God's Word what is not there (Matthew 15:8.9; Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6).

Worship must be in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). In spirit means that the worship is not going through the motions or attempting to impress others (Matthew 6:1-18; Malachi 1:10; Isaiah 58:1-12). This is not about an emotion, but basic honesty. Now I am far from being against emotion in worship. But we should not drum up a feeling to convince ourselves that we are spiritual or to impress others. Rather, we should focus on meaning what we say to God, and the appropriate emotion will follow. Worship in truth should reflect what is true about God and His revelation to us. Now we need to remember that we are still sinners and do not have all the answers (1 Corinthians 3:18; 8:1-3; Philippians 3:12-16). But that does not negate our obligation to stand for God and His truth (John 17:17; 2 Corinthians 13:8; Ephesians 4:15). We must find this balance in our requirements for worship.

Worship should also be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). The word translated "decently" is a broad word. (Its basic idea is "appropriate" or "becoming"). In the context, it speaks of things that make sense. Speaking in tongues without interpretation is the example (1 Corinthians 14:7-14). This refers to something that does not communicate to others. This applies in other areas, but we need to be careful of rejecting something that is merely unfamiliar or requires explanation. "In order" refers to obvious conflicts, such as people speaking at the same time (1 Corinthians 14:26-33). But the meeting described is fairly informal, with various people taking turns speaking in the service. I am certainly not saying that no one's form of worship is in violation of these principles, but they allow a considerable breadth of acceptable practices. Now I am not rejecting all tradition or ritual. Rather, I would see Scripture as allowing for a wide variety of approaches to worship. What I would like to see is something that brings together the best of various approaches to worship. But I think we should be more concerned with what is in the mind and heart than the outer trappings.

A Touch of Humor - The Exegete

2011-10-04T11:00:00.000-07:00

What is the danger of reading into Scripture our own preconceived opinions? How can we avoid this?

A Voice from the Past - John Owen

2011-09-30T14:00:00.000-07:00

Sin does not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh. When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it to be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion.

John Owen, 1616-1683, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers, Chapter 2 (Overcoming Sin and Temptation, Edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor, 2006, Crossway Books, p. 51)

Is this true? How should it affect our lives?

The Presence of Evil

2011-09-29T14:00:00.000-07:00

One of the oldest philosophical questions on record is the problem of evil.The reason it persists is it has not just an intellectual but an emotional impact. We experience or observe suffering, and our reaction is, How can a good God allow this? The basic Christian answer to this is that we live in a world in rebellion against God and this results in evil consequences.

Now the Christian position is that we are we are responsible for our actions, though it is difficult to understand how this fits in with God's being in control (Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 43:13; Romans 8:28). Now trying to avoid this responsibility through psychological determinism leaves us not able to know anything, because whatever we think we know is the result of our conditioning. Also, if we are not responsible to do what is right, how can we condemn God for not doing what is right? And without God, where do we get the moral basis to complain of the evil in the world? We could also claim we are not really bad enough to deserve this suffering. But the Bible's claim is that by God's standard we are indeed that bad (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9).

Now the Bible affirms that suffering in this world is not always fair (John 9:1-3; Psalms 73; Job). But there is no such thing as a fair evil, and once evil is let into the world, it will not always affect people fairly. Also, God uses suffering or its absence to work in people's lives to bring them to Himself or to help them grow in Him (James 1:2-4; Romans 2:4; 8:28; John 11:4). Though this ultimately depends on the response of the individuals involved. Now taken by itself, this would lead to an ends-justifies-the-means morality. But given there is evil in the world, it is important to understand that God uses it to accomplish His ends. Also, every viewpoint has to deal somehow with the presence of evil in the world. We can say evil is normal, but then why are we so opposed to it? And if we see evil as normal, we are excluding the one Person in the universe who would be able to eliminate it

There is another fact which helps to put the problem of evil in perspective. It is the Christian contention that God became a Man (John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:9-15) and paid the price for our evil behavior (1 Peter 2:24,25; Romans 8:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15). Further, He has promised to come back again (Titus 2:13; Philippians 3:20,21; 1 John 3:2) and do away with the evil and suffering of this present life (Revelation 21:4; Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17,18). We may not be able to fully explain, let alone understand, why God allowed evil in the world. But it makes a huge different whether He is an ivory-tower observer or the Man of Sorrows who identified with our pain and took the worst blow on himself that we might be delivered.

Has the Old Testament Been Corrupted

2011-09-27T14:00:00.000-07:00

It is easier to establish the preservation and historical reliability of the New Testament then the Old. That is because the Old is set in an earlier period of history. But we do need to evaluate the evidence. Now there is good evidence of preservation from before the time of Christ. There are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also the Hebrew Old Testament was preserved by the Jews, while the Christians preserved the Greek translation. It is difficult to see how they would have agreed together to alter it. There are also numerous quotes in early Jewish and Christian sources. Now there is the question of the Apocrypha. But the idea that the later Christian church could add to the original Jewish Bible does not accord with Scripture or reason (Romans 3:2).

If we go back before that, there is more room for doubt, and many have come up with fanciful theories of how the books were composed. (My basic answer to this is, people do not write books that way. It would be one thing if they could produce physical evidence, but there is none. The argument is based on the plausibility of the theories and they are implausible.) But we are faced with a large amount of archeological evidence confirming the history behind the Old Testament. Now there have been archeologists in recent times who have tried to cast doubt on this, but this has not been based on any new discovery, but is an attempt get around the evidence that is there. There is a considerable amount of evidence for the times of the kings of Israel and Judah. There has been a tendency to minimize or deny the kingdoms of David and Solomon, but there is new evidence to support them as well. Now we do still lack clear-cut evidence for the earliest Old Testament events, the Exodus and the patriarchs; and there is argument on both sides as to whether various pieces of evidence support one view or the other. (This is not surprising, considering the earliness of the events, nor would we expect any Egyptian chronicler writing in the manner of the time to record an event like the Exodus.) But it is amazing how accurate the later parts are if they were written long after the facts. In comparison, while Mycenae and Troy have been shown be real places, there is no record of the details and individuals involved in early Greek history. The early history of Rome is generally considered legendary and lacks detailed proof. The Greek records of Egypt and Mesopotamia are extremely garbled. But the kings of Israel and Judah, along with the other rulers they dealt with, appear repeatedly in inscriptions and records of the period. It is difficult to see how legends created long after the time could have this accuracy. Now this does not prove that the message of the Old Testament is true. But it does mean it needs to be dealt with based on the evidence.

A Touch of Humor 15

2011-09-26T11:00:00.000-07:00

What rules should there be for worship? Do they at some point become silly?

A Voice from the Past - Chesterton

2011-09-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason.

G. K. Chesterton, 1874-1936, Orthodoxy, III. The Suicide of Thought (Dover Publications, 2004, p. 23)

Is this helpful in explaining our world today? How should we respond to it?

In Search of Revival

2011-09-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

Evangelical Christians have long prayed and worked for revival, but while there have been some claims of likely prospects, it has not come. Why? I do not believe it is because we have not prayed (James 4:2). I am under the impression many of us have prayed. Could it be we have prayed (at least in many cases) with the wrong motives (James 4:3)?

Why do we want revival? Is it possible one motive for wanting it so that we can be comfortable in the world? We have been through a shift as a nation where Christianity as gone from being respected and nominally adhered to, to being looked down upon and rejected. This is true not only of Christian beliefs but also of Christian moral principles. This, not surprisingly, can make Christians very uncomfortable. Could it be one of our chief reasons for praying for revival is so we can go back to being comfortable? Now it is really not surprising if the world is hostile to us; in fact Jesus promised it would be (John 15:18-21; 16:1-4; Matthew 10:16-25). Also, when the world is fully on our side there is a question of whether this means we have become conformed to it (Romans 12:1,2; 1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4). It might even be suggested that our comfortableness in the world contributed to the world slowly turning away from us.

Now do not get me wrong; I am not suggesting we should all become hermits and hide ourselves out in a cave somewhere or even hem ourselves in with multitudes of legalistic rules to avoid any contact with the world. Being in the world but not of the world is a difficult balance (John 17:14-19). And we are to reach out to those who need a Savior (Matthew 9:10-13; 1 Corinthians 9:19-22; Colossians 4:5,6). But we must expect opposition from the world if we are serving God. Does that mean we should not pray or work for revival? No, we should pray and work that souls will be saved. We should pray and work for better laws to be passed in our nation. But we must do so with the knowledge that we live in a fallen world and we cannot expect it to be totally on our side (and should be suspicious of it when it seems to be). And we should want it for the glory of God and the salvation of others, not so that we can be comfortable. And most of all, whatever happens we must trust in God and His power to bring us through (Proverbs 3:5,6; Romans 8:28; Matthew 16:18).

Why Can't We Get It Right?

2011-09-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, why are we not able to agree on what it has to say? This has been used to try to prove the Bible is not really authoritative and we need something else to interpret it. How should we look at this problem?

If we have trouble interpreting the Bible, is the problem with the Bible or with us? We are sinners (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9), and being sinners, our understanding of truth is imperfect (1 Corinthians 3:18; 8:1-3; 2:14). We allow our traditions and preconceived notions to determine our interpretation (Matthew 15:7-9, 12:1-14, Romans 12:2). I know from personal experience how hard it is to get past what I have been taught and to see what the Scripture really says. We can also be influenced by our culture and what it sees as acceptable (1 John 2:15-17; Colossians 2:8; James 4:4). Along with this, we must consider how far it is legitimate to interpret Scripture to fit in with the current scientific or philosophical opinions and how reliable those opinions really are.

There is also the desire to be different. The desire to see in Scripture some mysterious truth that no one else sees. The root of this is, of course, personal pride (Proverb 16:18; Romans 12:16; 1 Corinthians 13:4). This is why it is important to consult great Christian teachers of the past. It is not that they are more authoritative then Scripture, but that they put our own teachings in perspective. To keep from going off on a tangent, we should check our ideas against respected Christian teachers. To avoid being merely conformed to our own time, we need to consider the teachers of past ages.

Also, there is a danger of trying to make the Bible speak on subjects the Bible never claimed to speak on. The Bible is the authority for faith and practice to prepare us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16,17). But it is not intended to give us answers to all our questions on other subjects. Even on faith and practice it tells us what God wants us to know, not what we want to think is important. I am convinced that the emphasis, as well as the words of Scripture, is inspired and that what God does not command, He leaves free (Deuteronomy 4:2). Therefore, when the Bible does not teach something clearly, we should not be dogmatic on it.

It is not surprising that in certain incidental matters there should be questions of cultural context, linguistics, or textual criticism. This is a result of being in a fallen world. But that does not mean the basic message does not come through. Nor is it surprising that in explaining the things of God, there would be things hard for us to understand. We need to avoid changing them into something that makes more sense to us. But even if there are difficulties, we should not throw out the standard and replace it with something else.

A Touch of Humor 14

2011-09-19T11:00:00.000-07:00

What is the proper Christian attitude toward politics? How cynical should we be?

A Voice from the Past - Irenaeus

2011-09-16T14:00:00.000-07:00

Error in fact, does not show its true self, lest on being stripped naked it should be detected. Instead, it craftily decks itself out in an attractive dress, and thus, by an outward false appearance, presents itself to the more ignorant, truer than Truth itself, ridiculous as it is even to say this.

Irenaeus, 125-202 AD, Against the Heresies, Book 1, Preface, 2 (trans. Dominic J. Unger, Capuchin Province of Mid-America, 1992, p.21)

Is this true? How might it be applied?

Two Hands

2011-09-15T14:00:00.000-07:00

Making Christ Lord of Our Lives

2011-09-13T14:00:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to make Christ Lord of our lives? Is this something that happens at salvation or later? Now I do not want to quibble, but there is a problem with the wording of the question. Nowhere in Scripture does it talk of making Jesus Lord; Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Revelation 19:16). We can no more make Jesus Lord then we can make the sun come up tomorrow. Jesus is even Lord of every unbeliever's life, and one day they will confess it (Philippians 2:11). Now believers are called to live in light of the Lordship of Christ. But He is Lord of our lives regardless.

The gospel message presupposes the idea that we are sinners (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9). This implies that there is a moral standard, the Law of God that we have disobeyed (Galatians 3:10-12; Romans 3:19,20; James 2:10). This then clearly indicates that God is Lord. Given that Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8; John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11), the logical conclusion is that Jesus is Lord. However, the only person who fully lives based on a full understanding that Jesus is Lord is the one who totally obeys Him. None of us reaches that point in this life (Philippians 3:12-16; 1 John 1:8-10; Galatians 5:17). Growth in Christ is a process that happens throughout life (1 Timothy 4:7,8; Hebrews 5:11-14; 12:1,2), and it involves obeying Christ's lordship in every aspect of our lives. Now there may be junctures in our life when we recognize God's lordship in a deeper way. But these are steps in the process.

Is it a condition of our salvation that we should decide to do good works? The resolutions of a natural man are meaningless. The only thing that can change us is God's working in our lives (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29), and apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5; Romans 7:18; 8:8). But if an individual comes to Christ with the intention of refusing to let God change their behavior, this is not saving faith. Also, Scripture teaches that we who have been redeemed by Christ we should live for Him (Romans 12:1,2; Titus 2:11-14; 1 Corinthians 6:20), motivated by our love for Him (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; Luke 7:36-50). There should be a change in a person's life when they put their faith in Christ (James 2:14-26; Matthew 7:15-23; 1 John 2:19), and if there is not, we must at some point question whether they have real faith. But we must be careful of too quickly passing judgment on another (Romans 2:1; 14:4; Matthew 7:1-5). We are all people in process, and while there clearly is a point when people must be confronted with their sin (Galatians 6:1; Matthew 18:15-17; 2 Timothy 2:24-26), we are called to deal with one another in kindness, not in harsh judgment (1 Peter 4:8; Ephesians 4:32; Hebrews 12:12,13).

A Touch of Humor 13

2011-09-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

What is the right approach to sharing Christ? How do we avoid the pitfalls?

A Voice from the Past - Anselm

2011-09-09T14:00:00.000-07:00

How he is omnipotent, although there are many things of which he is not capable. -- To be capable of being corrupted, or of lying, is not power, but impotence. God can do nothing by virtue of impotence, and nothing has power against him.

Anselm, 1033-1109, Proslogium, Chapter VII, (Proslogium; Monologium; An Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon; and Cur Deus Homo, trans. Sidney Norton Deane, The Open Court Publishing Co., 1926, p.25)

What does this teach us about God? What are its implications?

The Gift of Evangelism?

2011-09-08T14:00:00.000-07:00

People frequently speak of the spiritual gift of evangelism. But while it is mentioned as a ministry or office (Ephesians 4:11), it seems singularly absent from the lists of gifts. I would propose that the reason for this is that there is not a specific gift of evangelism, but that evangelism is applying the gifts we have to those outside the church. If we have a gift of teaching we should use it to instruct unbelievers in the truth of God. If we have a gift of service we should serve them. If we have a gift of mercy we should sympathize with their problems. If we have a gift of healing we should pray for their healing. (It is not my point here to argue whether some gifts have passed away, but the main point stands no matter what you believe on this.) What then is this thing we normally call the gift of evangelism? May I suggest it is the gift of exhortation, which exhorts the unbeliever to put their faith in Christ. I would submit that the reason we tend to see this as the gift of evangelism is because exhorters are frequently the closers. The people who, after others may have sown the seed, come in to reap the harvest. But this does not mean that other Christians with other gifts should not be involved in evangelism (and may not even in some cases serve as reapers).

The implication of this is we need to avoid making sharing Christ a mold which everyone is forced to fit into . An individual should not become discouraged because they do not fit the mold. They should not feel they have no obligation to be involved in sharing Christ either. Everyone should ask how they should be involved in evangelism with their gifts. I am not intending to go into details here on methods, but I am convinced that some methods will fit better with different gifts. We should not try to force everyone into one method, and we should be careful of rejecting methods just because they make us uncomfortable. I am not saying there are no wrong methods, but often the method that fits one gift may not work well at all for another. Also, while I do think every Christian should be able to communicate the basics of the gospel (1 Peter 3:15; Acts 1:8; Colossians 4:5,6), I would suggest that evangelism may often be a body endeavor and not just an individual endeavor. If a person has intellectual objections to the gospel, it may be a good thing for the exhorter to call in a teacher to help. If someone with the gift of service has laid the groundwork for someone to come to Christ, they may on occasion find it helpful to bring in an exhorter to help the person come to Christ. But each person should use their own gift to be involved in showing others the way to Christ.

Bridging Grace and Law

2011-09-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

A right understanding of the centrality of grace is necessary for living the Christian life. But what does this mean? Sometimes this is pictured as meditating on grace to produce a vague mystical feeling that causes you to live as you should. Not being into vague mystical feelings of any type, I have to ask myself, what is the connection between a right understanding of grace and the life of obedience that should result?

Grace is the right motivation for obedience (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; 1 Corinthians 6:20). This is important if we are to avoid believing that the purpose of doing good is to exalt ourselves or earn something from God. There is the story of the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet. She was motivated by the fact she was a sinner and needed forgiveness (Luke 7:36-50), but the Pharisee who thought he was righteous by his own efforts was indifferent to Him. Could the reason we sometimes lack motivation in serving God be that we have forgotten what He has done for us (2 Peter 1:9)? But God's grace not only provides the motivation for a life of obedience, but it also provides the power ( John 7:37-39; 2 Peter 1:3; Galatians 2:20), and only His power can transform our lives (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29). The bottom line here is, what am I trusting in? Am I trusting in my own ability or God and His power (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Hebrews 12:2). The result is the confidence of knowing that God is at work in our lives to accomplish His purpose (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; 1 Corinthians 3:6,7) and that we will ultimately be victorious because of what Christ has done (Romans 8:37; 2 Corinthians 2:14; Colossians 2:15). It also means that when we fail we can be confident of God's grace and forgiveness (Romans 8:33,34; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Philippians 3:13). But we are also driven to humility, realizing that we are sinners saved by the grace of God (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:4; Jeremiah 17:9) and that nothing good comes from us, but from His work in our lives (John 15:5; Romans 7:18; 8:8). By this we can avoid self-righteousness and with it watering down God's Law in order to convince ourselves and others that we have succeeded in keeping it (Romans 2:1; Matthew 23:25-28; 6:1-21). There will always be the dangers of despair and presumption in the Christian life, and it is only the gospel that puts this in perspective.

Now I am not saying there is not a place for effort in living the Christian life (1 Timothy 4:7.8; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 5:14). Certainly there it a place for stating what God commands; after all the New Testament does so. But it is only as this is put in the context of the gospel and the grace of God that we can escape moralism and vague mysticism and put our obedience in its proper place.

A Touch of Humor 12

2011-09-05T11:00:00.000-07:00

What kinds of problems can gossip produce in a church? Are there ways we can avoid it?

A Voice from the Past - Martin Luther

2011-09-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

To make the way smoother for the unlearned -- for only them do I serve -- I shall set down the following two propositions concerning the freedom and the bondage of the spirit:

A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.
A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.

Martin Luther, 1520, The Freedom of a Christian (Three Treatises, Fortress Press, 1970, p. 277)

Is this correct? What does it mean? How do the two statements fit together?

How Do We Find Truth?

2011-09-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

Is science the only way to find truth? This is something that is often assumed. But can it be proven? It is one thing to say something is a legitimate source of truth and another to say it is the only source of truth. A clock is a source for truth regarding what time it is. But it does not tell you who is the president of the United States. That scientific methodology is an accurate approach to finding truth is something on which nearly everyone agrees, though they may take exception to specific theories. To claim that science is the only way of arriving at truth is unproved and unprovable. This is relevant because it should be recognized that there are areas of knowledge that cannot be dealt with scientifically. Science deals with repeatable events, which can be studied through experimentation and observation. Not everything lends itself to be studied in this way. This includes not only the things of God but even the facts of history. We cannot determine who is president of the United States scientifically. We ultimately cannot do science if science is the only source of truth, because one of the standards of the reliability of scientific findings is whether they are reproducible by others. But we cannot prove by science whether others have reproduced them.

But this is particularly true regarding the truth of God. If God exists we should not expect Him to be amenable to laboratory testing. Certainly the Christian God has rejected such a concept (Matthew 12:38-40; 16:1-4; John 4:48). God is not a performing animal that we can make jump through our hoops. Rather, we need to look for God where He claims He can be found. That does not mean there is no evidence, but we need to get past the idea that the only acceptable evidence is scientific evidence. To hold to this idea is simply to engage in circular reasoning. We cannot expect God to show Himself to us based on our preconceived notions. We must meet Him where He chooses to reveal Himself to us. When we do, we must of course weigh the evidence to decide if we should believe it. But we cannot stipulate beforehand what the evidence must be.

Mike Erich - The Mad Theologian

A Voice from the Past - Justin Martyr

The Secrets of the Knights Templar

Do You Have to Be Crazy to Be a Charismatic?

I Will Build My Church

The Sound of Worship

A Voice from the Past - Lewis

The Great Divide

In Defense of Ritual

The Standard of Selfishness

A Touch of Humor - Their Evangelists

A Voice from the Past - Hilary of Poitiers

Reaping and Sowing

The Victory Parade

Standing in Judgment

A Touch of Humor - Delegation

A Voice from the Past - Ignatius of Antioch

Should We Try to Christianize the World

God's Leading

Following Biblical Examples

A Touch of Humor - The Optimist

A Voice from the Past - Leo the Great

The Errors of Good Men

Staking Our Claim

A Child Is Born

A Touch of Humor - The Procrastinator

A Voice from the Past - Martin Luther

The Good Invasion

The Castle

Is Christianity a Myth?

A Touch of Humor - The Hierarchy

A Voice from the Past - Chesterton

Impacting All of Culture

The Fanastic

More Spiritual Than God

A Touch of Humor - The Spirit of Christmas Presents

A Voice from the Past - Athanasius

The Dangers of One Man in Charge

The Bethesda Factor

Do We Really Believe It?

A Touch of Humor - The Holiday Celebration

A Voice from the Past - Augustine of Hippo

To Paddle or Not to Paddle?

Leap of Faith?

Other Stories of Miracles

A Touch of Humor - The Usher

A Voice from the Past - Anselm

Sacrifice of Praise

Dancing in the Dungeon

Getting Out the Vote

A Touch of Humor - Thanksgiving Question

A Voice from the Past - Ambrose

The Carey Conundrum

Christian Malpractice

The Things We Think We Know

A Touch of Humor - The Tithe Talk

A Voice from the Past - Gregory the Great

The Christian and Economics

Confusion on Confrontation

Are We Arrogant to Believe We Are Right

A Touch of Humor - Guilt by Association

A Voice from the Past - Tertullian

Humbled Himself

Aletheia Rolls On

On Teaching Children

A Touch of Humor - Scary Costumes

A Voice from the Past - Writer of Epistle to Diognetus

Beside the Church

Witchcraft

Witchcraft and Paranoia

A Touch of Humor - Sunday Best

A Voice from the Past - John Calvin

Glitz and Glitter

Psychological Legalism

A Touch of Humor - The Head Count

A Voice from the Past - Charles Hodge

The Evolution of God

Quality of Life

A Touch of Humor - The Chair Game

A Voice from the Past - Polycarp