Old Erich Proverb - Preservation

Once God's truth dies in the hearts of a people, no confession or institutional structure can preserve it.

A Voice from the Past - Charles Hodge

In the second place, the duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him. These facts are all in the Bible. This is true, because everything revealed in nature, and in the constitution of man concerning God and our relation to Him, is contained and authenticated in Scripture.

Charles Hodge, 1798-1878, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, 5, A (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982, p.11)

Is this correct? How does it affect our approach to understanding God?

Can Atheists Be Moral?

Can atheists be moral? The simple answer is, yes. But the next question is, why? All of us are products of our upbringing. Also, there seems to be a deeply ingrained tendency in human beings to believe in morality. Even if we reject traditional morality, we erect a new morality in its place. Some may accept the the killing of the unborn, but they protest the destruction of endangered species. But what do we base any morality on? This is not just a problem for atheists, but also for agnostics and those who hold to a vague, impersonal God who is not concerned about morality. I remember back when I was an agnostic thinking I should do things for the good of posterity. Then I asked the question why I should care about the good of posterity. The concern for the good of posterity is a moral principle, and without morality I had nothing to base it on.

Some would try to base morality on evolution, claiming that evolution can promote cooperation as well as competition. But this reduces morality to enlightened self-interest. However, is this morality? Let's face it, bank robbers and crooked politicians can cooperate together to accomplish their purposes. But morality is based on the idea that there are certain things I should do because they are right, even if they are not to my personal advantage. If we reject such an idea, let us simply be honest and say we reject morality and have done with it. If I am only moral as long as it is to my advantage to be moral, my morality is useless. But can real morality be justified from a purely naturalistic point of view? 

I do think this morality without basis does make it more likely that certain individuals will reject morals entirely. However, I frankly do not think most of us will give up on moral thinking; it is too much a part of us. But I do think that morality without basis leads to moral creep. We can base our morals on whatever people happen to think or whatever is portrayed sympathetically in the media. And a good writer can make almost anything look reasonable. Therefore, we drift in our convictions, depending on what is currently acceptable or the last thing we viewed or read.

But the bottom line is, if I cannot shake this morality thing, where did it come from? Now this is not an unequivocal argument for the existence of God. One can always claim that morality is some kind of a mental fallacy, and people should live only for self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. But we have to ask why this fallacy is so persistent and why we have such a hard time shaking it. And if we are going to keep living by it, we need a logical basis for our behavior. 

If the Center Holds

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

I remember being involved in a church that was going through a wringer. It had had problems before I got there, including the exodus of a large part of the congregation. Soon after I got there the pastor, who was burnt out by previous problems, left, and a certain part of the congregation left with him. We got a new pastor, but many of the officeholders of the church dropped out, either entirely from the congregation or from the carrying out of their office (some later came back; others did not). At one point the active leadership in the congregation seemed to consist in the pastor and five other people, and one of them kept explaining how their family was soon going to move out of town. Things came back together, but we kept having periodic minor conflicts, losing a family here and a family there.


One day I was praying through the sanctuary during a time it was empty. And the thing God impressed on me was, "If the center holds, you will make it through." (I know this ultimately comes from a pagan source, but when God brings things to my mind He normally uses the baggage that is there.) I took this as meaning that if the core of the church would stick together, we as a church would make it through.

Later, I was in a different congregation that appeared to be doing well. I knew there were potential problems, but I thought we could avoid them. Then one day when I was walking through the sanctuary, I felt the familiar nudge, "If the center holds, you will make it through." And I asked myself, Are we in that much trouble? Not long afterward we were involved in a major conflict, resulting in the loss of about half the congregation. Later, the pastor was promoted to a position in the denomination, and the new pastor had to deal with a series of problems and aftershocks. But we stuck together and made it through.

I do not want condemn people who switch churches. I have switched churches myself for various reasons on more than one occasion. But I think there is too much tendency to desert simply because things get difficult. Now there are things worth splitting a church over, and there may be individual congregations where it is just as well if they close their doors. But I do believe the Biblical exhortations to unity imply we need to stick together and work out our problems, where possible, rather than leaving at the first hint of trouble (Philippians 2:1,2; Ephesians 4:1-6; Colossians 3:12-15). One of the great innovations in ancient warfare was the shield wall. Instead of each warrior fighting for himself, they made a row of interlocking shields so they protected their neighbor's flank. We Christians need to do this for each other. Perhaps then more ministries would make it through, rather than collapse.

Conventional Legalism

Legalism is a word that is hard to pin down and is used in different ways. It is not simply adding extra rules that God does not command, though this is wrong (Deuteronomy 4:2; Matthew 15:1-14; Colossians 2:20-23). The core of legalism is believing I can be acceptable to God based on my good works rather than on trusting Christ's sacrifice (Galatians 2:21; Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 3:19-31). Now this trust results in a changed life (Ephesians 2:10; Titus 2:11-14; Galatians 5:13,14), but a changed life is our response to God's love for us (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; Romans 12:1,2). This change is imperfect in the present time (Philippians 3:12-16; Romans 7:14-25; Galatians 5:16,17) and we are just before God based on what He has done for us  (Philippians 3:9; Romans 8:33,34; Colossians 2:9-15).

There are various forms of legalism. There is an emphasis on self-control and the strict adherence to the rules.There is a legalism than is more interested in being nice to people rather than following precise rules. This is closer to Scripture, which makes love the basic commandment (Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 13:1-7). But if the emphasis is on what I do rather than on what Christ has done, it is still legalism. There can also be an emphasis on experiences or rituals. All of these can be legitimate in their place. But if they are seen as the thing that reconciles us to God, they are wrong.

But these forms of legalism tend to end up in conventional legalism. Conventional legalism is the idea that if I am a good moral person and avoid any obvious sins, I am all right. The Christian version adds basic Christian duties. But it is focused on what society considers respectable. And it is hard to maintain when society does not endorse it. One example of conventional legalism was the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He believed in and practiced conventional legalism in an Empire riddled by decadence. He was conscientious and tried to turn the tide. In doing so he tried to suppress all strange foreign beliefs. Based on this he condemned a little slave girl who followed a Galilean Carpenter who did not stand for conventional legalism, but offered forgiveness of sins and eternal life. And she maintained this belief in the face of all the tortures the Empire could inflict on her. Marcus Aurelius, for all his position of power, failed. He could not prevent his own son from embracing the decadence nor did he slow the general tide of corruption. And the faith of the little slave girl went out and conquered the world. But often today, we who are her heirs have seated ourselves in the seat of Marcus Aurelius. And have no more ability then he did to halt the decadence of our culture. And I am convinced it is only by reaffirming our original message, that God by free grace forgives sinners, that we can hope to make an impact on our culture.

A Touch of Humor - Card Exchange

How do we avoid seeing the holidays as a chore rather than a celebration? What are some things we can do to contribute to this?

Old Erich Proverb - Who You Know

It's not what you know but who you know, but people settle for knowing politicians, movie stars, rock musicians, and businessmen when they can know the God of the Universe.