Lutheran Soteriology

In spite of what “timothy” said in his comments to one of my previous posts, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is hardly Arminian.  In fact, the lack of historical acumen required to even make such a statement is…well, to be charitable, I should really not complete that sentence.

There are many who fault Calvary Chapel for our views on issues like election and the security of the believer.  Now, whereas I am in no way suggesting that CC’s position is the same as historical Lutheranism (it isn’t; there are critical differences); however, it’s amazing how eerily familiar these Q&A’s about Lutheran doctrine sound, from the LCMS’s website:

Q. Can you lose your salvation and if you can, what do you need to do to regain it again?

A. The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod believes and teaches that it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us (1 Cor. 10:12; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8, etc.). Such warnings are intended for Christians who appear to be lacking a right understanding of the seriousness of their sin and of God's judgment against sin, and who, therefore, are in danger of developing a false and proud "security" based not on God's grace, but on their own works, self-righteousness, or freedom to "do as they please."

By the same token, the LCMS affirms and treasures all of the wonderful passages in Scripture in which God promises that He will never forsake those who trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation (John 10:27-29; Romans 8; Heb. 13: 5-6, etc.). To those who are truly repentant and recognize their need for God's grace and forgiveness, such passages are powerful reminders of the true security that is ours through sincere and humble faith in Christ alone for our salvation.

A person may be restored to faith in the same way he or she came to faith in the first place: by repenting of his or her sin and unbelief and trusting completely in the life, death and resurrection of Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation.

Whenever a person does repent and believe, this always takes place by the grace of God alone and by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's Word in a person's heart.

12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

36. Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc. Nor does Holy Scripture know of an election "by foreseen faith," "in view of faith," as though the faith of the elect were to be placed before their election; but according to Scripture the faith which the elect have in time belongs to the spiritual blessings with which God has endowed them by His eternal election. For Scripture teaches Acts 13:48: "And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed." Our Lutheran Confession also testifies (Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraph 8; M. p. 705): "The eternal election of God however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10:28: `Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand'; and again, Acts 13:48: `And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.."'

37. But as earnestly as we maintain that there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation, so decidedly do we teach, on the other hand, that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation. Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, that is, that it embraces all men without exception, that Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God, and that God earnestly desires to bring all men to faith, to preserve them therein, and thus to save them, as Scripture testifies, 1 Tim. 2:4: "God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." No man is lost because God has predestined him to eternal damnation. -- Eternal election is a cause why the elect are brought to faith in time, Acts 13:48; but election is not a cause why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God. The reason assigned by Scripture for this sad fact is that these men judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, putting the Word of God from them and obstinately resisting the Holy Ghost, whose earnest will it is to bring also them to repentance and faith by means of the Word, Act 13:46; 7:51; Matt. 23:37.

Again, please do not misunderstand – I am not here suggesting that Lutheran theology comports with CC theology.

I am, however, very intrigued to not how non-Calvinist and non-Arminian their theology is…again demonstrating that the idea that those two particular theological antipodes exhaust all options, and therefore if you are not one you are therefore automatically the other.

Not.

Non-Arminian Non-Calvinists

Many if not most Calvinists view the world in terms similar to Islam, in the sense that the world is neatly divided into two opposing camps: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.  Dar al-Islam is the “house of Islam,” the theopolitical abode of the faithful; by way of contrast, Dar al-Harb is the “house of (those with whom we are continually at) war (until the Day of Judgment).”  There is no middle ground, there are no third parties, you are one or the other.

Very neat, very tidy, very binary.

For many if not most Calvinists, you are either a Calvinist or you are an Arminian (or, as many of the “Truly Reformed/New Calvinists” like to insist, a Semi-Pelagian).  To them, these two options exhaust the theological possibilities.  If you are not for Geneva, you are against her – and for at least some, that is equivalent to rejecting the Gospel itself.

I have heard countless times by my Reformed friends how my unease with the Calvinist “doctrines of grace” stem from the fact that I value humanistic philosophy over the clear teaching of the Word – the necessary implication being that if you reject Calvinism, you reject the clear teaching of the Word, and instead embrace humanistic philosophy.  I am constantly labeled an Arminian as a result.

However, the prevailing Calvinist insistence on the Calvinism/Arminianism dichotomy fails irreparably (and quite quickly) when honestly examined.

It turns out that there are quite a few theological systems which owe nothing to either Calvinism or Arminianism.

For instance, Lutheranism.

Lutherans would be mighty surprised to find that their theology owes its existence to a Dutch reformer who was born fourteen years after Luther (the putative founder of their confession) himself died.  Yet that Lutheranism is emphatically not Calvinism is beyond controversy.  It instead occupies a theological territory quite other than either.

Though I am far from being Lutheran, the more I read about Lutheran theology the more impressed and appreciative of aspects of it I become.  Among other things, Lutherans handily navigate the vexing waters between the Scylla of God’s Sovereignty and the Charybdis of man’s free will.  Take, for instance, the Lutheran position on the doctrine of divine election, summarized by Josh Strodtbeck in an interview with iMonk:

Luther shied away from abstractions, and we Lutherans inherited that. Not just sovereignty, but the attributes of God in general are simply not of extreme importance. If you look at Luther’s catechisms, he actually defines God in terms of Creation, the Cross, and the Church. Compare that to Q7 in the Westminster LC. So for Lutherans, theology is done in terms of God’s relation to us. That means theology never gets away from Law and Gospel, from justification, from the incarnation of Jesus Christ. If you look at the discussion of election in the Formula of Concord, its driving concern is not maintaining God’s sovereignty, but rather how election is to be preached within the framework of Law and Gospel. That’s why Chemnitz is comfortable with basically saying that God declares our election to us in the preaching of the Gospel and admonishes against rational speculation on the inscrutable decrees of God apart from Christ, who is made known to us in the Gospel and the Sacraments. It’s also the source of the bewildering (to Calvinists) assertion by Lutherans that while election is purely of the grace of God in Christ, reprobation is purely of the obstinate will of man and against God’s desire that they be saved. This doesn’t make sense in terms of divine attributes or sovereignty, but it does if you hold that damnation is Law and election is Gospel.

{emphasis mine}

I like that.

I really like that.

To my Calvinist brothers: I still love you, my opening paragraph was purposefully provocative, in order to provoke a reaction similar to the one I and other non-Calvinists feel when your theological brethren dismissively try to pigeon-hole us into the “Semi-Pelagian” category simply because we don’t see the Canons of Dort as comporting with what we understand in Scripture.

That said, I find it beyond fascinating that the theological landscape is vastly more variegated than the oversimplistic “Calvinist/Arminian” weltanschauung prevalent in so much of the current theological conversation.

Excursus on Grace

Chuck Smith’s autobiography was made available at the recent Senior Pastors’ Conference.  I began reading it the last day of the conference (yesterday) and I’m already a little over halfway through.

About the middle of the book, as he relates the great revolution of his thinking which led ultimately to the genesis of the Calvary Chapel Movement.  One of the key things which impacted him was an Excursus on Grace in Newell’s Romans Verse by Verse.  This excursus so profoundly changed his thinking on grace, that it still echoes through his ministry to this day.

After reading it, I can see why:

Excursus Chapter Six: “A Few Words About Grace” (excerpt)

I. The Nature of Grace

1. Grace is God acting freely, according to His own nature as Love; with no promises or obligations to fulfill; and acting of course, righteously – in view of the Cross.

2. Grace, therefore, is uncaused in the recipient: its cause lies wholly in the GIVER, in GOD.

3. Grace, also is sovereign. Not having debts to pay, or fulfilled conditions on man’s part to wait for, it can act toward whom, and how, it pleases. It can, and does, often, place the worst deservers in the hightest favors.

4. Grace cannot act where there is either desert or ability: Grace does not help – it is absolute , it does all.

5. There being no cause in the creature why Grace should be shown, the creature must be brought off from trying to give cause to God for His Grace.

6. The discovery by the creature that he is truly the object of Divine grace, works the utmost humility: for the receiver of grace is brought to know his own absolute unworthiness, and his complete inability to attain worthiness: yet he finds himself blessed – on another principle, outside of himself!

7. Therefore, flesh ahs no place in the plan of Grace. This is the great reason why Grace is hated by the proud natural mind of man. But for this very reason, the true believer rejoices! Fro he knows that “in him, that is, in his flesh, is no good thing:” and yet he finds God glad to bless him, just as he is!

II. The Place of Man under Grace

1. He has been accepted in Christ, who is his standing!

2. He is not “on probation.”

3. As to his life past, it does not exist before God: he died at the Cross, and Christ is his life.

4. Grace, once bestowed, is not withdrawn: For God knew all the human exigencies beforehand: His action was independent of them, not dependent upon them.

5. The failure of devotion does not cause the withdrawal of bestowed grace (as it would under the law). For example: the man in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; and also those in 11:30-32, who did not “judge” themselves, and so were “judged by the Lord-that they might not be condemned with the world!”

III. The Proper Attitude of Man under Grace

1. To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.

2. To refuse to make “resolutions” and “vows;” for that is to trust in the flesh.

3. To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth.

4. To testify of God’s goodness, at all times.

5. To be certain of God’s future favor; yet to be ever more tender in conscience toward Him.

6. To rely on God’s chastening hand as a mark of His kindness.

7. A man under grace, if like Paul, has no burdens regarding himself; but many about others.

IV. Things Which Gracious Souls Discover

1. To “hope to be better” is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.

2. To be disappointed with yourself is to have believed in yourself.

3. To be discouraged is unbelief to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.

4. To be proud is to be blind! For we have no standing before God in ourselves.

5. The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion.

6. Real devotion to God arises, not from man’s will to show it; but from the discovery that blessing has been received from God while we were yet unworthy.

7. To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so – in proper measure.

STR: Hitchens’ Mess

Good response here to Chris Hitchens’ book, God Is Not Great.

Inerrancy and Creation

Probably one of the chiefest reasons modern evangelicalism is wholesale abandoning Biblical inerrancy is the discomfort many have with the plain reading of the Biblical account of Creation.

This has led some to put forward the idea that the Creation account was simply an observational statement which is not itself an actually accurate description of the real events – much like when we say “the sun rose” – obviously, the sun don’t rise none; our world, caught in a stable orbit within our sun’s gravity well revolves around our parent star exactly once each solar year.  It is simply a statement of observation; from the perspective of the viewer, the sun seems to rise while the horizon appears from our frame of reference to remain fixed.  It is technically inaccurate to use the phraseology, “the sun rose,” but even planetary scientists use the term descriptively; it is an idiomatic peculiarity of the human experience expressed in language.

Those who seek to accommodate current scientific assumptions, to help the Bible out and excuse what they view as an obvious contra-scientific view of origins, try to argue that the first several chapters of Genesis are obviously in the same category; they are observational, phenomenological descriptions only which are something more than myth but less than strictly accurate.

You have several galactically massive problems with that view.  Not the least of which is that the Creation account is given in such exacting detail down to an explicit chronology, that the Spirit sure does seem to have Himself at least at one time believed that He was accurately recording the events He claims to have not only been witness to but actually the active agent in.  Too bad the Holy Spirit didn’t have the benefit of modern science, there, eh?  Poor divine Guy…

The Spirit’s not the only Person of the Trinity Who suffers from this myopia, either; Jesus apparently didn’t have that information, either.  He certainly seems to have been victim to the mistaken idea that Genesis is accurate and trustworthy.  He didn’t have the advantage of living in the modern era, here in the Year of Our Lord Darwin 200, where such silly misconceptions could have been corrected and He could have spared Himself (to say nothing of His less conservative followers) considerable embarrassment.

The bottom line for me, and one which those who hold this sort of view vigorously deny is the case, is that it all boils down to a question of authority.

Either the Bible is the final authority for the Christian, or it isn’t.  You can’t have it both ways, and there is no via media.  If it is the final authority, then all things must be viewed through its lens.

The modern (and the postmodern, ironically enough) view Scripture through a lens other than itself.

The modern views Scripture through the lens of current scientific understanding.  The idea is that the Biblical authors were genuine and sincere, but also ignorant, and while the Bible is accurate in the message it seeks to convey, the particulars must be viewed through our much more complete understanding of the way of things and must be redacted to fit more comfortably into the worldview we now know to be established scientific fact.

Except…that it’s not established.

Science, by its very nature, is constantly (dare I use the term?) evolving, constantly learning new things which put the older, “established” things into a different light, allowing for wholesale reinterpretation of previously unquestioned tenets.  We are vastly more ignorant than our premodern ancestors if we think that we have things so nailed down scientifically that we can now offer editorial help to God.  Even previously understood laws of science are vulnerable to reinterpretation in light of new information.  Just in the previous century, our entire understanding of the physical nature of creation had been turned on its head – not once, but several times.  In another hundred years (should the Lord tarry) I expect that our current understanding of physics (and with it, cosmology) will be again completely revolutionized.

By contrast, the Bible is fixed, unchangeable.  And given its origin (the God who created all things and exists wholly outside of Creation), is the only viable lens through which the Christian can and should view the world.

The modern views Scripture though the lens of our current, limited understanding of science; the postmodern views Scripture through the lens of culture.

Even worse an option.

I view both through the lens of Scripture.

So when the Bible sure does seem by every internal indication to teach that God created the universe in six consecutive chronological days, I have no choice but to accept that, and to view all data through that presupposition.

As Dr. Morris states in this article:

The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take priority over scientific theories, while they believe scientific theories must determine our biblical interpretations.

Read the article “Old-Earth Creationism” and consider its arguments.

Twilight

Good article here from the Institute for Creation Research, which among other things looks at the current evangelical trend of soft-pedaling the all-important doctrine of inerrancy.

"Oh, I really don't see it that way," he stated. "My church teaches that the Bible may be inspired, but it's not inerrant. It's all about man's description of God."

I heartily agree with those who state that evangelicalism is in its twilight. Evangelicalism, ironically due to its obsession with relevance, is becoming increasingly irrelevant.  In seeking to accommodate itself to the zeitgeist, it has both consciously and unconsciously watered down the core tenets of the Scriptural faith and has become little differentiated from the moderate-to-liberal mainstream of modern Christianity.

There is a reason why most theologically paleoconservative church Statements of Faith (including CC Lakeshore’s) begin with a clear declaration along the lines of, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, verbal, plenary, confluent Word of God” or something along those lines. The reason is that without an inspired, inerrant Bible, we have no firm basis to believe in God in the first place – at least, no firm basis to believe in the God revealed in that very Bible.  It is the Bible which tells us of the Triune God, of the fall of man, of God’s work of redemption on the Cross, and of His soon-return for us at the end of the age.

And of Creation, and other bugaboo topics that theological neoconservatives really and fervently wish weren’t in the Bible, as they cause great embarrassment for them in their quest to be relevant and must be explained away rather than accepted and dealt with head-on.

The Atonement in the Talmud

So the other day, a friend of mine and fellow pastor, Jim Bomkamp, asked me to consider posting the following article here. The author is an elder at Jim’s fellowship, Calvary Chapel Green Bay, named Dave Reynolds.

Interesting stuff…

---

Evidence for Christ’s Atonement from a Surprising Source: The Jewish Talmud

Introduction

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I determined to get away for a weekend, and I asked Dave, one of the church elders, to do the Sunday teaching for me. This document contains the fantastic message that he gave that morning. I have only edited it to cause it to be more Internet-friendly and apply more specifically to the blog reader.

The information that I will share with you today has existed for many hundreds of years, but is virtually unknown in Christendom. Some believers[1] have discovered this information and are now making it known.

When I first came across this information, I was surprised but joyful, and it greatly encouraged my soul. Nevertheless, I began to have some doubts, because it just seemed “too good to be true,” and I have a tremendous predisposition to believe that if something seems too good to be true, it usually isn’t true. However, when I went to the original source documents, I found to my surprise that they say exactly what they were asserted to have said, and were not the products of wishful thinking, as I feared they were.

This information lends compelling credence to the fact that the world of Judaism changed forever in the year 30 AD. Specifically, I will share with you today four documented miraculous occurrences that began to manifest themselves in the year 30 AD.

Historical background/sources

The Talmud

In order to make sense of this information, I will need to spend some time establishing the historical and spiritual background from a Hebraic perspective. For the source of this incredible story is a collection of documents known as the Talmud. What is the Talmud? There are actually two versions: The Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem (or Palestinian) Talmud. Both consist of two parts: the Mishnah and the Gemarra. The Mishnah, or codification of laws, is written primarily in Hebrew, and is identical in both versions. The Gemarras, sets of lengthy and rambling commentaries on the Mishnah, were both written in Aramaic, and differ somewhat between the Babylonian and Jerusalem versions. The Jerusalem Talmud consists of writings that were assembled between about 300 BC and about 400 AD, while the Babylonian Talmud was started at the same time as the Jerusalem Talmud, but completed about 100 years later. The Babylonian Talmud is more well-known and commented upon than the Jerusalem version, owing largely to the fact that the rabbinic academies of Babylonia survived those in Palestine by many centuries.

For many hundreds of years, the Talmud has been the principal subject of Jewish study. There is no direct analogy between the Talmud and anything in Christian literature. While Jewish people have studied and revered it for centuries, they do not seem to regard it with the same reverence as the Hebrew Scriptures. However, they do regard it with more reverence than we Christians would regard the great exegetical classics and commentaries of the Christian faith.

Just to make this perfectly clear, let me say that I do not regard the Talmud to be a holy book, or in any way inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Bible. Nor do I recommend that any Christian study it the way we should study the scriptures. However, I do think that since we Christians have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel[2], it behooves us to understand some of the background, as long as we approach that study carefully and prayerfully, always keeping in mind that all scripture points to the Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) and his redemptive work on our behalf.

Why should we care?

Why am I bringing this message to you today? There are two primary reasons:

To bolster our faith

First, I found this information to be personally encouraging, and my hope is that it will bolster your faith, as it did my own. The world teaches us that the Bible is a collection of myths that are perhaps useful to some people for the purpose of teaching general moral principles. However, this viewpoint ignores that fact the historical archeology keeps revealing more and more as time goes on that these so-called myths are actually factual events that really occurred. This information from the Talmud is like a literary archeology that confirms important elements of our faith, even though it was written by people who had no interest whatsoever in advocating or advancing the Christian faith.

To have a witness for our Jewish friends

Secondly, I hope this information will provide powerful opportunities to witness to our friends that are Jewish. It does virtually no good to witness to Jewish people using the New Testament scriptures, since they are taught from childhood that the New Testament is invalid. However, if we can witness to Jewish people starting from the Old Testament (particularly the Torah) and from the Talmud, documents that they are predisposed to believe, we have a better chance of actually engaging them in a discussion that leads to a chance to present the gospel.

Four miraculous events starting forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem

The amazing text from the Talmud that we shall consider this morning reads as follows:

“The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'"[3]

Yom Kippur

The first two of the miraculous events described in the Talmud have to do with Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement. Let’s look to see the Biblical description of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:

“1Now the LORD spoke to Moses after ^(A)the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the LORD and died.  2The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter ^(B)at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the ^[a]mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for ^(C)I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.  3"Aaron shall enter the holy place with this: with a bull for a ^(D)sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.  4"He shall put on the ^(E)holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments) Then he shall ^(F)bathe his body in water and put them on.  5"He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel ^(G)two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.  6"Then ^(H)Aaron shall offer the bull for the sin offering which is for himself, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household.  7"He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting.  8"Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the ^[b]scapegoat.  9"Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering.  10"But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make ^(I)atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.  11"Then Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering ^(J)which is for himself and make atonement for himself and ^(K)for his household, and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself.  12"He shall take a ^(L)firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground ^(M)sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil.  13"He shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the ^(N)mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, ^(O)otherwise he will die.  14"Moreover, ^(P)he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it ^(Q)with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.  15"Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering ^(R)which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.  16"^(S)He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.  17"When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel.  18"Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and ^(T)put it on the horns of the altar on all sides.  19"^(U)With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it.  20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.  21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and ^(V)confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.  22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.  23"Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and take off ^(W)the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there.  24"^(X)He shall bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on ^(Y)his clothes, and come forth and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.  25"Then he shall offer up in smoke the fat of the sin offering on the altar.  26"The one who released the goat as the scapegoat ^(Z)shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp.  27"But the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, ^(AA)whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn their hides, their flesh, and their refuse in the fire.  28"Then the ^(AB)one who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water, then afterward he shall come into the camp.  29"This shall be a permanent statute for you: ^(AC)in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls and not ^(AD)do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you;  30 for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to ^(AE)cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the LORD.  31"It is to be a sabbath of solemn rest for you, that you may ^(AF)humble your souls; it is a permanent statute.  32"So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father's place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on ^(AG)the linen garments, the holy garments,  33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for ^(AH)the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34"Now you shall have this as a ^(AI)permanent statute, to ^(AJ)make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year." And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.”

Miracle #1: The taking of the lots

The first miracle has to do with the taking of the lots for the two goats on the Day of Atonement, as mentioned in verses 7 and 8:

“He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting.  "Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the ^[b]scapegoat.”

It’s interesting note that the word “scapegoat” in our language has come to mean the opposite of its original intent!

The Talmud gives more detail on exactly how the rituals described in Leviticus were to be performed:

MISHNA: “He shook the box, and took out two lots. On one is written, "to Jehovah"; on the other is written, "to Azazel." The Segan (a priest second-in command to the high priest) is at his right, and the head of the family [see above] on his left. If that of Jehovah was taken up by his right hand, the Segan says to him, "My lord the high-priest, raise thy right hand." If that of Jehovah was taken up by his left hand, the head of the family addresses him: "My lord the high-priest, raise thy left hand." He placed them [the lots] on the two he-goats, and uttered: "To Jehovah a sin-offering." R. Ishmael says: It was not necessary for him to say "sin-offering," but "to Jehovah" sufficed. They responded: "Blessed be the name of His kingdom's glory for ever."[4]

The Talmud further elaborates: “Why had he to shake the box? That he should not have intentionally taken that for Jehovah in his right hand (as it was a good omen if he took it up by chance).”[5]

Not only was this ritual done exactly the same each year, but it was also recorded whether the lot for the Lord was taken up by the high priest’s right or left hand.

Now, the Talmudic passage cited previously states that, for the forty years preceding the destruction of the Temple, the lot for the Lord NEVER came into the high priest’s right hand. What is the probability of that happening? Well, since there were only two lots in the box, there is a fifty-fifty chance each year that the stone for the LORD would come up in the right hand and a fifty-fifty chance of it coming up in the left hand. Now the laws of probability state that the probability of consecutive events happening is the product of the probabilities of the individual events. So the probability of the stone coming up in the left hand two years in a row is 1-in-2 squared, or 1-in-4. For it to come up in the left hand three years in a row would be 1-in-2 cubed, or 1-in-8. The probability of the stone coming up in the left hand for forty years in a row is 1-in-2 to the fortieth power, or one in one trillion, nine-nine billion, five hundred eleven million, six hundred twenty seven thousand, seven hundred seventy six. That probability is the same as predicting the exact second some random event will occur sometime within a period of thirty five thousand years.

Clearly, something extraordinary started happening in Israel in 30 AD.

Miracle #2: The crimson strap

In addition to the ritual of the lots for the goats, the Talmud describes another ritual concerning the goats that was also performed annually:

MISHNA: “He tied a tongue of crimson wool to the head of the goat that was to be sent away [the scapegoat], and placed him opposite to the gate through which he was to be transferred; and the one to be slaughtered, opposite to the place of its slaughtering. He went to his bull a second time, putting his hands on him, and confessing in these terms: "I beseech thee, Jehovah, I have committed iniquities, transgressed, and sinned before Thee, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people: I beseech Thee, Jehovah, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Thy servant: 'For on that day shall he make atonement for you, to cleanse you from all your sins, that ye may be pure before Jehovah.'" They respond after him: "Blessed is the name of His kingdom's glory forever."[6]

Symbolizing the scapegoat's throat having been slashed, a "crimson strap" was tied to each horn and passed under his throat during this ceremony. Before being led away to the wilderness, the crimson strap was tied to one of the Temple gates.[7]

Before the destruction of the original Temple, there was a High Priest named Simeon the Upright. During the years of his priesthood, according to the Talmud, “And the tongue of crimson wool, during the time of Simeon the Upright, always became white. But after Simeon the Upright, sometimes it became white, sometimes it remained red.”[8]

But the Talmud states that during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, “the red wool did not become white.” This would not have been alarming had it happened for two or three years in a row, but as the years piled up during which the crimson wool remained crimson, there was an increasing feeling of impending doom both for the Temple and for the Nation of Israel. Again, like the first sign, this sign persisted for the last forty years of the existence of the Temple.

Miracle #3: The western light of the Menorah

The Talmud said that “The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves."[9]

The Menorah, or Candelabra, was purportedly the one fashioned by Bezalel in the book of Exodus:

Exodus 25: 31 "Make a lampstand of pure gold and hammer it out, base and shaft; its flowerlike cups, buds and blossoms shall be of one piece with it. 32 Six branches are to extend from the sides of the lampstand—three on one side and three on the other. 33 Three cups shaped like almond flowers with buds and blossoms are to be on one branch, three on the next branch, and the same for all six branches extending from the lampstand. 34 And on the lampstand there are to be four cups shaped like almond flowers with buds and blossoms. 35 One bud shall be under the first pair of branches extending from the lampstand, a second bud under the second pair, and a third bud under the third pair—six branches in all. 36 The buds and branches shall all be of one piece with the lampstand, hammered out of pure gold.  37 "Then make its seven lamps and set them up on it so that they light the space in front of it. 38 Its wick trimmers and trays are to be of pure gold. 39 A talent ^[g] of pure gold is to be used for the lampstand and all these accessories. 40 See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

The Menorah stood approximately six feet high, and was placed in the Holy Place on the south wall, with its branches facing east-west.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about the daily ritual concerning the Menorah:

“The cleaning and refilling of the lamps, except the two most easterly, were performed by a priest every morning. If the priest found them extinguished, he relighted them. The two eastern lamps were left burning till after the morning service, and were then cleaned and refilled (Tamid iii. 9; Yoma 33a). The Ner ha-Ma'arabi (the Western lamp), also called "Ner Elohim" (I Sam. iii. 3), was left burning all day and was refilled in the evening. It served to light all the lamps. The Ner ha-Ma'arabi contained no more oil than the other lamps, a half-log measure (1 log contains the liquid of six eggs), sufficient to last during the longest winter night (Men. 89a).”[10]

Prior to 30 AD, the Western Lamp would sometimes stay lit throughout the night, and sometimes not. However, from 30 AD. onward, the Western Lamp was never found to be lit in the morning on any day for the next forty years when the priest went in to tend to the Menorah.

Once again, as this went on longer and longer, the Jewish leaders increasingly interpreted it as a sign of impending disaster.

Miracle #4: The temple gates

Recall how the Talmudic passage described the opening of the Temple gates.

“…, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'"[11]

This occurred nightly for the forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple. These gates were most likely the Nicanor Gates, whose initial opening is described by the great Jewish historian, Josephus:

“Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner, [court of the temple,] which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now, those that kept watch in the temple came thereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshewed the DESOLATION that was coming upon them” - (IV,5,3).[12]

The gates were fifty cubits high and forty cubits across[13], so you can imagine the surprise and alarm caused by their mysterious self-openings.

The significance of forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple

So what cataclysmic event occurred in 30 AD. to set off the miraculous things just described? It was the crucifixion of the one for whom the Temple was built in the first place. The one who, when asked by his followers about the beauty and majesty of the Temple, responded, “2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."[14] Why is it that the writers of the Talmud never associated these events with the rejection of Messiah? We may never know, but we can thank God that these things were recorded in the Talmud, and that by them, some of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may come to know that the calamitous events described came as the result of the rejection of the promised Messiah. We can pray that this knowledge will bring about the godly sorrow that leads to repentance and salvation by the blood of the Lamb.

Summation:

In this article, we looked at the odds of just one of these four miracles occurring continually every year for the forty years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The odds of all four occurring simultaneously for those forty years would be the product of multiplying that statistic times itself four times. Simply put, from a mathematical and statistical perspective, there isn’t even a computer invented today who could manipulate a number so large: this had to be a divine miracle intended to testify of Yeshua’s atonement to Israel.

The fact that the source is the Talmud, and that the Jews were the enemies of the Christians when the Talmud was written, proves that this is no hoax foisted by Christian sympathizers. The fact that the Jews still do not get the significance of any of these things beginning to happen the year that Christ was crucified is further evidence of the validity of these things.

Further sources for study online:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Jerusalem-After-Gibsons-Movie-Ending&id=1315918

http://wilkerson.110mb.com/index.htm

http://www.windowview.org/jandg.files/frms/talmds.frm.html

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/glory.htm

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com

http://ezinearticles.com/?Jewish---Christian--Biblical--Cover--Up&id=1042732

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/mysteriousevents.html

Footnotes:

[1] Reiland, Robert, “Jewish – Christian Biblical Coverup,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jewish---Christian--Biblical--Cover--Up&id=1042732.

2 Romans 11:17

3 The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

4 IBID.

5 IBID

6 IBID

7 Reiland, Robert, “Jerusalem After Gibson’s Movie Ending,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jerusalem-After-Gibsons-Movie-Ending&id=1315918

8 The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

9 The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[1]0 The Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=466&letter=M&search=menorah

[1][1]The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[1]2 Josephus, Wars of the Jews.

[1]3 James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, John Chisholm Lambert, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, http://books.google.com/books?id=OJUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=gate+of+nicanor&source=web&ots=xfWG-_HamZ&sig=RMdAiuLhBI3iKgJP7BY7VU5BIuU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

[1]4 Matthew 24:2

---

[1] Reiland, Robert, “Jewish – Christian Biblical Coverup,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jewish---Christian--Biblical--Cover--Up&id=1042732.

[2] Romans 11:17

[3] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[4] IBID.

[5] IBID

[6] IBID

[7] Reiland, Robert, “Jerusalem After Gibson’s Movie Ending,” http://ezinearticles.com/?Jerusalem-After-Gibsons-Movie-Ending&id=1315918

[8] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[9] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[10] The Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=466&letter=M&search=menorah

[11] The Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/yom09.htm

[12] Josephus, Wars of the Jews.

[13] James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, John Chisholm Lambert, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, http://books.google.com/books?id=OJUAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=gate+of+nicanor&source=web&ots=xfWG-_HamZ&sig=RMdAiuLhBI3iKgJP7BY7VU5BIuU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

[14] Matthew 24:2

Semi-Pelagians Unite!

Sorry for the blogpost title. Some of our more Reformed fellows (e.g., Mark "Blankety-blank" Driscoll) like to equate Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism - which is exactly equivalent with equating their Calvinism with fatalistic determinism.

So of course, I couldn't resist.

Anyway.

In what can only be described as a tremendous inversion of normal reality, Christianity Today actually published a good and edifying article.

You can imagine how long it took for me to recover; I think the shock of it all nearly did me in.

Again: anyway.

Roger Olson wrote a great article, Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian which I think bears reading and re-reading.

My blog-friend Vee clued me in to this article in her blogpost; it was her quote from the article which convinced me when I read it to carefully read & consider the fuller article:

Powell was concerned about my rather firm Arminian beliefs. One day he took me aside and said, “Roger, you should know that Arminianism has usually led to liberal theology.” Like many Reformed theologians, he believed that an Arminian emphasis on free will grants too much power to humanity and therefore contains a humanistic impulse. While I appreciated his implicit admonition, I knew from my own experience that this was not entirely true. Ever since, I have strived to prove that Arminian theology and an evangelical cutting edge can be combined comfortably.

[…]A turning point in my spiritual and theological pilgrimage occurred at a funeral. Aunt Margaret’s Christian Reformed pastor in Kanawha, Iowa, preached one of the most evangelical sermons I had ever heard. He challenged all present to give their lives to Jesus Christ just as Margaret had. Cognitive dissonance finally broke out into complete rebellion against the anti-Calvinist polemics I had heard from Pentecostal leaders and teachers. While I could not agree with all five points of the Calvinist TULIP—especially unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace—I knew that the tent of authentic evangelical Christianity was bigger and broader than I had been led to believe. That conviction strengthened as I drank deeply at the wells of evangelical Reformed theology throughout my seminary and university studies.

Even as I retained my Arminian beliefs, my evangelical mind expanded and deepened as I read Reformed theologians such as G. C. Berkouwer, Bernard Ramm, Donald Bloesch, J. I. Packer, and Francis Schaeffer. They showed me new dimensions of the doctrines of God and of salvation that had been missing or obscured in the Arminianism of my youth and early theological education: the mysterious, holy otherness of God; God’s majestic sovereignty over nature and history; humanity’s utter helplessness to achieve any goodness or even decide to accept the benefits of Christ’s suffering and death apart from grace.

I have since learned that these themes are not absent from classical Arminian theology, but I had to learn them from Reformed evangelicals. I emerged from my theological studies convinced that my Arminian theology, though basically correct, lacked depth and that it could be enriched by the heritage of Reformed Christianity. I also emerged convinced that Reformed theology—especially in its most consistent forms—lacked the marvelous note of God’s universal love for his human creatures so evident in the best of my own Arminian tradition. I was convinced that the evangelical community needs both George Whitefield and John Wesley, and that their heirs need one another to achieve the beauty of balance.

Oh, gooooooooooood...

Analogia Entis

If you don't already subscribe to the RSS feed for the Theological Word Of The Day, correct that oversight immediately.  TWOTD is a stupendous resource, giving very helpful summaries of important theological words and terms.  It's one of the blog feeds I read on a very regular basis, operating as I do under the twin assumptions that (1) you can't know too much about God, and (2) theology, being the study of God, is an indispensable resource for it.

September 26th's word was analogia entis - the "analogy of being," a very, very important concept, especially in light of so much of the ECM's love-affair with "chastised epistemology" which in essence states that we can't really know anything for certain about God except that we can't really know anything for certain.

Tony Jones summarized this sort of thinking well in his published dialog with Collin Hansen over the differences between the newbreed "Young Calvinists" and the Emergents:

Where we probably differ is not so much on theology, but on epistemology. That is, it seems the difference between the people you profile in Young, Restless, Reformed seem pretty darn sure that they've got the gospel right, whereas the Emergents that I hang out with are less sure of their right-ness. In fact, they're less sure that we, as finite human beings, can get anything all that right.

The Emergent party line is that, as result of the noetic effects of sin (that is, that among other things the Fall corrupted the mental faculties of man - which I agree with, BTW, and why I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Presuppositional Apologetic) we as humans ultimately can't know anything with an absolute degree of certainty save that we can't know anything else than that with an absolute degree of certainty.

In other words, since we are finite, fallen beings, it is impossible to fully know an infinite, holy God; and by extension (they say), we cannot know Him directly at all, but only obliquely, and imperfectly at that.

The argument, however, presupposes what it tries to prove - it begs the question, in other words.  It presumes that an incapacity for absolute knowledge precludes a capacity for moral certitude.

In other words, though I as a finite, fallen human cannot know God with absolute clarity, I can know what I know of God and what He has revealed of Himself with absolute certainty.

I can know, for instance, that God is good, holy, loving, and just, and that He took upon Himself human flesh, suffered and died, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead. I can know that His Word is true, and that any problems I have with that Word derive from myself and not the Word itself.

Anyway.

Back to the point of this blogpost...TWOTD posted a brief article on analogia entis which answers the ECM's "chastised epistemology" party line very well; turns out this isn't a new idea at all, and that the faithful in the church have dealt with this already in ages past and come up with a very sound position:

The belief that there exists an analogy or correspondence between the creation and God that makes theological conversation about God possible. While many would say that finite beings with finite language cannot describe an infinite God, theologians of the medieval era discussed this problem, seeking to resolve it by developing a theory which alloted the communication of words into three separate categories. Some words are univocal (always used with the same sense), some were equivocal (used with very different senses), and some were analogical (used with related senses). It is this third sense that the analogia entis finds meaning. While finite man cannot describe and infinite God perfectly (univocally), he can do so truly being that God has created man in his image and, through this, has provided and analogical way of communicating himself. To deny the analogia entis is thought, by some, to be a self defeating proposition since it would present the situation where an all-powerful God is not powerful enough to communicate himself to his creation.

Amen.

So - if you haven't already subscribed to TWOTD's feed - do it, now. Tons of good, solid stuff.

You'll thank me later.

Tony Soprano/Admiral Adama Celebrity Deathmatch

I've read a few reviews of this blogpost before, but finally, after it was linked over on the Blog Of Which We Do Not Speak, I went and took a gander myself...

...and I must say, very well done. Good - no, great analysis of the moral underpinning of both the Sopranos and Battlestar Galactica.

And a discussion of positive vs. privative evil.

Good stuff...

Junior High

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

You remember Junior High?  When petty disagreements between two people would resonate outward like pernicious ripples from the principals through all their myriad relations and relationships, sundering ties and restructuring alliances, like the European states after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

You know what I mean:

Hey, man; Bobby-Jim and I are fighting.  I don't like Bobby-Jim.  So because I don't like him, and you're my friend, you can't like him.

Oh, and Debbie-Sue's Bobby-Jim's friend, so you can't like her, any more, 'neither.

Basically, if you don't agree with me 100%, then I don't like you - and if I don't like you, my friends can't like you, either - otherwise, they immediately forfeit the privilege of friendship unless they toe the line.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.  We're all (at least nominally) adults now, and we can handle disagreements - even strong disagreements - without pouting, picking up our relational ball, and huffing off home to sulk.

We can disagree with someone, even strongly, and still like them.

In the context of the Church (and by "the Church" I mean the Church Universal, not simply the local church) this becomes and even greater issue and blessing.

The Body of Christ is large - very large.  And there's a whole, vast range of preferences and opinions on secondary and tertiary issues of faith and conduct.  The Bride is truly beautiful, not least of which because of the richness of the myriad tones and undertones in the grand chorus of the sundry voices engaged in worship, expression, discussion - and yes, debate.

I can appreciate what a brother from a different tradition than mine has to say; I can mull it over and consider its relative strengths and weaknesses, both without necessarily agreeing with a single thing the dude has to say or without casting him off as a heathen or unregenerate because of my disagreement with him.

There are hills that I will die on - foundational, core, first-order doctrines which define the borders of the Kingdom.  These doctrines revolve around the Person and Work of Jesus; disagree on these, and you are not my brother, you are not an object of fellowship - you are an object of evangelism.

Those doctrines that I will gladly fight tooth-and-nail over include:

• The full Deity and full Humanity of Jesus
• Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone
• His sinless conception, birth, and life
• Speaking about His birth - that it was a Virgin Birth
• His vicarious, substitutionary death in our behalf
• His bodily resurrection from the grave
• His return in glory at the consummation of the age

First-order doctrines which directly correlate with these, and which I will also gladly fight over include:

• The Trinitarian nature of God
• The fallen nature of man (born in sin, born innately a sinner, before any actual acts of sin had been committed)
• Jesus' Two Natures; He is One in Person, but Two in Nature
• (i.e., His Natures are not mingled in any way, yet with complete integrity of Person)

These (among others) are doctrines which separate between the Kingdom of God and everything else.  Compromise or reject any one of these, and you are not a Christian.

End of discussion.

Have a nice day.

Here's a Gospel tract.

These doctrines are precious and to be defended against all onslaught; we can never compromise here - never give ground...never.

But...there are a host of other doctrines which are important - even very important - but which are "in-house" arguments that, while they effect the spiritual formation and maturity of the one holding them, do not determine the eternal disposition of that one.

In other words, there are doctrines that are important, but are not salvation issues.

We might still disagree on these second-order doctrines - and even disagree sharply - but still be brothers, because we agree on the core essentials.

And I find great benefit from reading and interacting with as broad a range of Christian thinking as possible.  As I've said before, one of the reasons why is because it challenges my thinking - points out weaknesses and blindspots in my worldview that I wouldn't otherwise know were there, and gives me the opportunity to correct the situation.

Which brings up the main point I want to make with this blogpost.

Given that there is a truly broad area where we can disagree and still be brothers in Christ, and given that there is a large degree of permissible dissension in secondary doctrines, and given that secondary doctrines, though they don't necessarily impact on the salvation of the person holding them, are still important - given all that, there are going to likely be a great many areas where you and I might disagree.

That disagreement doesn't mean we're not brothers - it simply means we disagree on something which has a level of importance somewhat less than that of first-order issues of the faith.  Yet though it is of lesser importance, it is still important.

And because it's important, we should probably talk about it.

And by "talk," I mean that we will likely end up debating.

That's not a bad thing; again, as I've quoted before:

“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.”
John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II

Debate - or "vigorous dialog," if you get twitchy when the "D" word is used - is indispensable for clarifying our understanding of Scripture.  It doesn't mean we're on opposite sides of that border between the Kingdom of God and all else; it simply means we disagree to a substantial degree on something which, while we both lie within those borders, places us at opposite ends of a particular issue.

And it's important to be right about things which effect eternity.  I don't want to believe something just because my church teaches it, or my favorite teacher teaches it, or because, darn it all, that's just what I came up with on my own, thank you very much...and the best way I know of to constantly challenge my presuppositions is to (a) read those whose presuppositions differ from mine, and (b) interact with those whose presuppositions differ from mine.

The men and women that I respect the most are those who have challenged me, who have called me on the carpet, who haven't "gone along to get along," but have loved me enough to call me out and engage me on these important issues.  We may not have wound up finally in agreement...but I've always been enriched by the discussion.

There are men, fellow brothers-in-arms on the listserv for senior pastors for the movement I'm a part of who have seriously challenged me over the course of the last seven or eight years.  I value that - I greatly value that.

There are a few specific brothers who have challenged my deeply held views on things - and who I still don't agree with - but who have given me a different perspective on the issues in question and have given me the opportunity to really examine what I believe in a way that I couldn't have if I'd kept drinking my own intellectual bathwater, as it were, only thinking happy thoughts and interacting with peeps who already agree with me.

BTW - the point of debate shouldn't be to win - it should be to learn.  My opinions have shifted on things over the years as a result of this sort of true dialog, by discovering that my positions were weak and needed to be amended or discarded.  I am thankful for the brothers and sisters who have loved me enough not to leave me in my ignorance, but have challenged me to think.

All that being said: though I believe in the strongest possible terms that the richness of the diversity of the greater Body of Christ is a good thing, and that there is great value in listening to voices other than your own...it's also important to point out that I'm not suggesting that we all gather 'round in a great big group hug, sing kumbaya, forget about our real differences and just be happy-shiny-people-holding-hands.

Though you might be my brother, if we disagree on an important enough secondary issue significantly enough, I'm going to point that out.

And I fully expect you to do the same to me.

That doesn't mean we don't like each other and that we'll send some icky stuff through the mail to one another at Christmastide.  It means simply that we disagree on an issue that's important enough to contend over, while acknowledging the legitimacy of each other's place in the overall, greater Kingdom.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

A f'rinstance:

Rick "Syria's A Great Nation!" Warren is the big bad boy of the moment.  Personally - I don't care about Rick Warren.  I don't think Rick is the antichrist, I don't think he eats his young, I don't think he has the Number of the Beast tattooed to his forehead, hand, or nether region.  Do I think he's unwise in his associations?  Yep.  Do I think he's uncomfortably ecumenical?  Oh, yeah.  Do I think he's a pragmatist?  ...marginally, yes.  On some points.  Do I want to smack him upside his head and hopefully help some of those synapses to start firing in proper sequence so he never makes that egregious statement about Syria being a "great nation!" with "great support for human rights!" again?  Oh, you  betcha.  But do I think he's a brother - unequivocally.  Therefore, he will ultimately stand or fall before his own master, not me.

But, I reserve the right to point out where he & I disagree.  That has nothing to do with whether or not he's saved; it has everything to do with areas of disagreement between brothers that are sharp enough to warrant comment.

And no - it's not "nit-picky" to point out areas of disagreement over important-albeit-secondary doctrines.  And no, it's not an attack, so don't get your underbritches all in a bunch and go pout in a corner, rocking yourself into oblivion and wishing with all the fervency of your heart that nobody would ever disagree with you - or one of your friends - again.

Let's all take a deep breath and make that last little leap beyond puberty into adulthood: disagreement is not division.  Disagreement does not mean one person is saying, "me, Christian; you, unregenerate heathen pig-dog."  Disagreement is...disagreement.  And facing that disagreement is the best thing we can do to promote the health of the body - not to ignore it.  But name it, look at it, examine it, discuss it, and learn from it...and then move on.

All those marvelous creeds of the church arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

All the great theological terms we use on a daily basis, like Trinity, arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate and the need to further define what we mean when we say what we say.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

The very face of diversity in the Church Universal arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  The friction between the Roman Patriarch and the other Four, eventually culminated in the great Schism which apparently sundered the visible church into Eastern and Western communions - and which, ultimately, permitted greater expression and theological development, along with all the real garbage on both sides of the divide which were also attendant thereunto.

Then the disagreements within and without the Western Church gave us the Waldenses, and the Cathari, and the Hussites...eventually, a German priest nailed ninety-five points of contention with the institutional church of the time, and sparked the greatest controversy, the greatest debate in church history, the effects of which echo loudly down through the ages to me sitting here at my laptop plunking this out; I am in many ways one of his spiritual scions, given that I am Protestant.

And afterward; the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli over the Latin phrase, hoc est corpus Meum ("this is My body") helped formulate the Reformed view of the Eucharist...the disagreements on specific points of doctrine between Luther and Calvin shaped Protestantism for all proceeding centuries.  Between the Calvinists on the Continent and the British Isles.  Between the English state church and the Puritans. Between the Dutch Reformed and the Remonstrants.  Between Darby and...everybody who wasn't Darby.  The Pentecostal Revival. The great Fundamentalist-Modernist debates. The divisions in early Pentecostalism that led to the formation of the several Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of the Foursquare Gospel.  The discontent that Chuck Smith had with the Foursquare Church which led, ultimately, to his assuming the pulpit of a small, 25-member nondenominational church in Costa Mesa, California, in the mid-60's...which led, through a winding and exceedingly round-about way, to the planting of Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore here on the glorious West Coast of Michigan.

I could go on; I could cite the disagreement between Chuck Smith and John Wimber which eventually led to the formation of a new expression of the Body - the Vineyard movement.  And who doesn't love Vineyard worship music? Again - through disagreement and debate, though there was pain, though the differences themselves remain unresolved...the greater Body of Christ is yet again enriched.

I love the Body of Christ - in all her messy, often cacaphonous glory.  I love the deep richness of her expression; I love the wild wonder of the fulness of her song.

And I also love the truth.  And so, even while rejoicing in the differences, I recognize - we can't all be right.  And so, I test and weigh and examine the differences - I debate.  I affirm a brother's place in the Kingdom - while also reserving the right (indeed: the duty) to point out those areas of disagreement and hopefully provoke discussion about them.

It is not in the least bit inconsistent to affirm the brotherhood of someone I am at practical or theological odds with on non-essentials of the faith, while at the same time pointing out those points of contention and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

Guzik on Jesus

I'm finishing up on prep work for this morning's festivities at Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore, studying the last half of Luke 9, and I run across this gem from David Guzik:

Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side: Jesus taught them to have a more generous spirit. There are many that are wrong in some aspect of their presentation or teaching, yet they still set forth Jesus in some manner. Let God deal with them. Those who are not against a Biblical Jesus are still on our side, at least in some way.

• Paul saw many men preaching Christ from many motives, some of them evil - yet he could rejoice that Christ was being preached (Philippians 1:15-18).

Wow...

Asking hard questions - even vigorously debating - is important for the ongoing development of your understanding of doctrine.

I'd earlier read this on Dr. James White's blog:

"A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position."
John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II

Amen.

And very relevant given today's church's penchant for "dialogue" that leads to precisely nowhere. (BTW, I agree with White - I also need to get that book.) We must contend earnestly for the faith once for all given - that's a command, not a suggestion that can be ignored  because we want our Orthodoxy to be Generous so that Everything Must Change along with the Hidden Message Of Jesus - who it turns out is the penultimate Velvet Elvis.

Ahem.

Given that, there are debates that are "in-house," and debates that are "outside the family." And we need to keep the distinction in mind.

When it comes to intramural debate, we need to remember that we're contending with our brethren, who we might not agree with on all (or even most) particulars, and who love the same Jesus of the Bible that we do. Definitely, debate; that's how we refine our understanding of the Word - when our views & stances are challenged.

Yes, definitely debate...but never demonize.

Those who stand on the core orthodoxy of Scripture, though they're wacked in every other point, are still our brethren.

People can be confused about

• The timing of the Rapture
• If there's even going to be a Rapture
• The timing of the Millennium
• The structure of church government
• Egalitarianism vs. complementarianism
• The Gifts of the Spirit
• Bible versions
• The place - and the extent of the place - of psychology's legitimate insights
• Political leanings
• Modes of baptism
• etc.

...and a host of other issues, and still be our brethren.

It's those core, "first-order" doctrines that define the border between the Kingdom of God and all else, and they all revolve around the Person and Work of Jesus:

• His full Deity
• His full Humanity
• The fact that His two natures aren't in any way mingled
• The fact that His Person is in no way divided
• The Triune Godhead
• Jesus' death, burial, bodily resurrection & ascension
• His impending return
• Salvation by grace alone through faith alone
• etc.

That's something I need to keep in mind - I'm by nature a doctrinaire, an ideologue.

So it's of vital importance to keep in mind the distinction between an in-house debate and an outside-the-family debate.

In the former, we're vigorously dialoguing with another brother over important-albeit-secondary issues of the Faith; in the latter, we're contending earnestly with unbelievers over the very heart of that Faith, with the goal not of bludgeoning them with the Truth, but of being used as instruments of the Spirit in convicting them of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

Session 10 - Norman Geisler

• The methods change, but the message should not.
  
  
  
  • Conviction Without Compromise - book
  
  
  
  


• "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
  
  
  
  • The problem is - nobody knows what the essentials are anymore
  
  
  
  


• Post-Protestant


• Post-Orthodox


• Post-Denom.


• Post-Doctrinal


• Post-Individualism
  
  
  
  • ...and much more I couldn't write down quickly enough.
  
  
  
  


• www.emergentvillage.com


• "It aims at something else, and shoots itself."


• Anti-absolutism


• Anti-exclusivism
  
  
  
  • This is a major problem with MacLaren & Pagitt & others
  
  
  
  


• Law of non-contradiction (A cannot be not-A)


• Anti-foundationalism
  
  
  
  • Stanley Grenz - Beyond Foundationalism
  
  
  • "He got Descart before de horse..."
  
  
  • "Opposites (A is non-A) can both be true..."
    
    
    
    • The inverse cannot be true - think about it...
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Anti-rational
  
  
  
  • Fideism
  
  
  • "...ever learning and not able to come to the truth..."
  
  
  • "If I have to believe it because it's absurd, I wouldn't believe it."
  
  
  
  


• Anti-objectivism
  
  
  
  • All meaning is culturally relative
  
  
  • Skepticism ought to be skeptical of skepticism
  
  
  
  


• Anti-realism


• Anti-infalliblism


• Anti-propositionalism
  
  
  
  • The Faith is more than doctrine, but never less than doctrine
  
  
  • Ideas are important - doctrine is important!
  
  
  
  


• Post-orthodoxy
  
  
  
  • Unity over orthodoxy
  
  
  • Cannot surrender essentials
  
  
  • Cannot "sacrifice the right to be right"
  
  
  
  


• Anti-condemnationalism
  
  
  
  • UNIVERSALISM
  
  
  • More & more ECMmers are coming out of the universalist closet - that's true.
  
  
  • There is a hell because God is loving - and man is free (sorry, Dr. White. :mrgreen: )
  
  
  
  


• Anti-inerrantism
  
  
  
  • All other essential doctrines devolve directly from an inerrant Text
  
  
  • Everybody's making truth claims
  
  
  • Augustine's Dictum
  
  
  
  


• Well, he seems to dig Driscoll, so I'll listen more...


• MJ@internationallegacy.org for the PowerPoint
  
  
  
  • Get This!!!
  
  
  
  


• ECM very much tends to be not only theologically liberal, but also politically