Marriage Bootcamp (Audio)

Marriage Basics - Here

Marriage Problems - Here

Marriage Solutions - Here

Marriage Tips - Here

Psychologizing Sin & Its Impact on Biblical Counseling

by JM

It is certain that pastors must offer techniques to aid those they serve. Abstract principles without specific application is akin to giving people a destination without a vehicle; urging people “to be warmed and filled” without blankets and a food voucher. The question then becomes this: is there a kind of therapy unique to Biblical Counseling? It is clear enough that many therapies are reflective of underlying worldviews. Freudian psychology results in uniquely Freudian applications. Skinner’s Behavioralism has birthed unique therapeutic/clinical models. What about a Biblical worldview? One might argue that the Biblical model for the application of the doctrine of sanctification is minimalistic, and therefore the Biblical model for counseling should be minimalistic. Paul seems to offer this model when he deals with the works of the flesh in people’s lives:

(1) Instruct: Get people to understand the gospel and its implications for facing the problems of living.

(2) Command: Urge people to stop behaving in ways that don’t reflect the truth of the gospel.

When Paul deals with the works of the flesh in people’s lives he effectively tells people to “stop it” by putting off the old man and putting on the new man. Should this minimalism be carried over to our counseling model? I worry that to overcomplicate the counseling process (let’s say by charting surgically precise prescriptions for very particular problems) might communicate a greater power to sin than we should, as well as distracting from more efficient solutions. For any problem and behavior P, it is more than likely that P is made up of an elaborate web consisting in thoughts, examples, attitudes, history, etc… that are causally linked. Let’s represent it as follows: P [T, E, A, H, etc…]. As counselors we might feel that therapy should consist in interacting with the nuances and causal connections of T, E, A, H, etc to P. The other option is to deal with the set as a whole by addressing what is common in all these areas of sin. I opt for the later.

I do not feel confident that we have Biblical warrant to baptize Freudian-like introspection and insert this as the typical practice in the typical church counseling circumstance. The general truths of the gospel rightly understood and applied are more than sufficient to aid a believer struggling with the seemingly infinite complex of sin and depravity. We do not need physician-like knowledge of a disease to receive treatment for it. I need only to trust the physician and follow his prescription – the physician being God and what he declares about us in His Word.

Some may rejoin by urging that this generalism offers no solutions to a mass of people who are hurting. I feel that it’s just the opposite. Psychologizing sin limits help to a special class of professionals who have only been on the scene for the past 60 years. For thousands of years we have been sheep without shepherds, wandering aimlessly without the penetrating psychoanalysis needed to live a life pleasing to God.

The Danger of Social Justice

From Justin Taylor - Source

From a letter from Senior Tempter Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood, who is in training to tempt Christians:

About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate.

Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster.

On the other hand, we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice.

The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [=God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner.

—The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis pp. 126-127.

Marriage Is...

Some thoughts on God's Intention for Marriage from Genesis 1 & 2.

Marriage is invented by God, not by society

Without a design for marriage, there is no set definition for it. Unless God tells us what counts as marriage, culture may define what counts as marriage. The Bible teaches us that God designs and therefore defines this union (Gen 2:24).

Marriage is monogamous, not polygamous

Monogamy means that two particular people are bound together. Polygamy refers to someone having multiple spouses at one time or throughout their lives (Serial-marriages).

Marriage is heterosexual, not homosexual

Marriage is to be entered into and enjoyed by two people of the opposite sex.

Marriage is a covenantal, not contractual

Contracts are founded on services provided, covenants aim at the creation and protection of relationship; contracts emphasize personal rights, covenants emphasize personal responsibility; contracts tend to dissolve when one party fails, covenants tend to absorb the failures for the sake of the union; contracts have a very limited shelf-life. Covenants are long-lasting.

Marriage is complimentarian, not egalitarian

Some would insist that gender should not define how a husband and wife should relate to each other, to their families, and to their world. This is called egalitarianism. In contrast to this position, the Bible teaches that God created husbands and wives to behave in a particular way that expresses their gender. Men and women are created the same in value, but not the same in function. Their differences are designed to compliment themselves, their union, their family, and the world. That’s complimentarianism (Gen 2:18-25).

Marriage is God-imaging, not Man-imaging

Marriage is not an end by itself. It’s a means to the end of imaging God (i.e., displaying God). God created Adam and Eve in His Image; marriage unites men and woman to portray God in a unique way that a man or a woman will not do by himself or herself. Marriage exists to glorify God by pointing to his redemptive plan of salvation through Jesus (Eph.5:32).

Marriage is kingdom-building, not self-service

God created both male and female to marry, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and “subdue it” (Gen. 1:26-27). Together they create culture for God by joining together for the goal of making God known through their relationship, making babies (creating other humans), and working to ensure the extension of God’s dominion in and through themselves and their children. Human family is a delivery system for the expansion of God’s family.

Marriage is pro-sex, not pro-abstinence

“The two will become flesh...” The Bible teaches that a vibrant sexual relationship between husband and wife is the seal and sign of the greatness of marriage (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31-32), an ongoing expression of service of two people to each other for mutual satisfaction (Pro.5:15-20; Song of Solomon; 1 Cor 7:1-5), and therefore a way to glorify God.

A Crash Course on Prayer

Audio - HERE

How Do You Know When You've Been Called?

How do you know when you've been called to be a pastor? Here are some of my thoughts on the topic - HERE

When "Messianic Christianity" Becomes Dangerous

A few years ago, I was invited to sit in on a bible study that was pitched as a time to learn more about the Jewish roots of Christianity by a pastor from a Messianic Congregation. I love the topic and desired to put on the scuba gear and dive a little deeper. Having brought a few folks from the congregation that I served, we quickly learned that the gathering had the agenda of converting Christians (who do not observe the Jewish customs as found the Scripture), call them to repent of Anglicizing Jesus, and to embrace Jewish Christianity. This email exchange is a small sample of conversations we had as a group and in personal correspondence before we were asked to leave.

Jake

Thanks for coming out and sharing your convictions in such an approachable way. Looking over your paper and thinking over the talk, I have to say that there’s a lot that must disagree with. I’ve included some of my thoughts in this email. Please let me know what you think.

Sabbath

In your presentation, you essentially said Christians who do not obey days such as Sabbath are in disobedience to God. When James declares that faith works, you interpret “works” as referring to things like Sabbath-keeping. Which means, in your view, that Christians who do not keep Sabbath are not working as they should. Again, when Jesus says that those who love him keep his commands, by “commands” you believe that he is referring to things like feast-keeping.

Now this is also what you’ve said in your paper. You say that Archbishop is correct when he says “the written word explicitly enjoins the observation of the seventh day as the Sabbath.” Also, the church has “adopted, and do practice, the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the (Catholic) church.” In other words, you’re saying that if we truly believed in Scripture alone, then we would keep Sabbath and abandon the tradition of Sunday worship.

It’s almost as if your claiming there’s no substantiation at all for the present practices of mainstream Christianity. This is odd to me, because I think that there’s not just a little, but significant Scriptural and historical support for how Christians regard their relationship with Jewish customs. I assume given your claims, that you have done serious analysis of the support that Christians give for why they do not adhere to certain Mosaic prescription. I would love to here you’re critique of these reasons. Here are some of the reason I would give for my position.

For example, I’m sure you know of the references in the New Testament of Sunday worship. Contrary to your claim that the Council of Trent (in the 16th century) or Constantine (in the 4th century) replaced the Sabbath with Sunday, we have ample Biblical and Historical evidence to the contrary.

We know that the empty tomb was discovered on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1). Further, we see that Christians so venerated the resurrection that they began worshipping on Sunday. We see believers gathered together in holy convocation (Acts 20:7). Paul would have believers set aside their earnings to be given on the first day of the week within the context of worship (1Cor16:1).

Further, we see the testimony of early church leaders who confirm the importance of Sunday.

Ignatius (30-107), "If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher."

Justin Martyr (100-165), "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place and memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits....Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assemble because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness in matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead."

The Epistle of Barnabas (between 120-150), "'Your new moons and sabbaths I cannot endure' (Isa 1:13) You perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me but that which I had made in giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is a beginning of another world. Wherefore also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, a day also in which Jesus rose from the dead."

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178), "The mystery of the Lord's resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day."

Cyprian (220-258), "The Lord's day is both the first and the eighth day."

Though obviously not Scripture, these leaders provide powerful historical evidence that the wide spread practice established practice of the Christian faith was that of Sunday worship. I think this is especially relevant with guys like Ignatius and Justin Martyr, the former probably being a disciple of the apostle John (with Polycarp), and both of them writing in a time that if they conveyed any serious deviation of the faith, they would have been immediately check by the larger Christian community. We find no such rebuttal.

I think the most power evidence is found in Paul’s writings. Paul wrote most about this topic because God had selected him to be the chief apostle to the Gentiles. As such, he was forced to wrestle with both cultural and spiritual matters directly related to what Gentiles should and should not do in coming to the faith which was do deeply rooted in Judaism.

Take Romans 14. The book was certainly written to a congregation with both Jew and Gentiles (the briefest of surveys reveals this). It its certain that Paul was very concerned about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. In that context Paul says,

“Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. …One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

In this chapter Paul declares that there are certain things that Christians are at liberty to adhere to or not. The thrust of Paul’s exhortation is that we should never exercise our liberty in such a way so as to stumble those who do not have the same convictions on areas in which we have liberty. Conversely, Paul chides those who would charge believers with disobeying God because they don’t share and obey the same areas of conviction that they hold to.

I find it fascinating that Paul uses both dietary and ceremonial areas as examples of genuine liberty. It’s as if Paul says, some of you believe that certain foods are kosher, others of you being that all foods are kosher. That, Paul contends, is an area of genuine liberty. Again, one person esteems one particular day as the day that we should set aside for worship (let’s say Saturday), and some of you believe that its another (let’s say Sunday), Paul says that this is an area of genuine freedom. That is to say, we should not label someone disobedient if they worship on Saturday or Sunday. “Each person must be fully convinced in his mind.”

Paul would even go further. As an apostle of the Gentiles, he was in constant struggle with various groups who declared that Gentiles “ought to” conform to Jewish practices and feast-keeping, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc… For example,

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. 8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

As you know, Paul is dealing with a congregation plagued with teachers who instructed these believers wrongly about the relationship of believers to the law. For example, Paul refers to the Judiazers compelling Titus to be circumcised. Paul refers to the hypocrisy of Peter who would have the Gentiles live like the Jews, even though as a Jew he lived like a Gentile. Paul chides the Galatians for believing that they could be perfected by the works of the law, even though their salvation began by grace alone. Later on Paul says that the law was our schoolmaster to drive us to Christ.

In chapter 4, Paul says that these particular people were beginning to “observe days and months and seasons and years.” Commentators are almost in universal agreement that Paul is referring to Jewish feasts and festivals. What is fascinating is that these believers at one point did not observe these things, and then they turned back to the weak and worthless elemental things by observing them. Granted, Paul is referring more to how they used them (as a means of continuing in the flesh what has begun in the Spirit), but Paul’s point is that observing these things are not even essential (as you seem to indicate).

Or put differently, Paul’s response is this: not only should these things not be regarded as a means to salvation, but more relevant to your claims, Paul says that these are things that don’t even have to accompany someone’s salvation. That is, the works mentioned by James (ch.2) are not these kinds of works.

Another relevant passage is Colossians 2:

Colossians 2:8-17 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. 16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Again, we have an obvious reference to the law and how Christ takes the debt we owe and fulfills it. In verse 16 we have the conclusion that no one is to act as our judge in regard to food or drink and what days I celebrate on, like the Sabbath (continuing the theme of Romans 14). Paul is clear that God is not displeased with a person who doesn’t eat kosher or doesn’t worship on Saturday. Put differently, God isn’t more pleased with someone who does. These things are shadows which have passed.

If You Love Me, Keep My….

In your article, you make an argument that since the Father and Jesus are one, then the commandments of which Jesus speaks of are the commandments given by God to obey Sabbaths, feasts, etc.

Firstly, it’s unlikely that the disciples were thinking in those terms when Jesus gave this injunction. Further, Jesus no where commands his disciples that they should obey Sabbaths and feast days. Peter and John weren’t thinking, “Oh, do you remember that time when Jesus told us to attend synagogue every Sabbath.” What we do see in context is Jesus saying things like,

John 13:34 4 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

I think that it is instructive that when John refers to this discourse in his epistle, he doesn’t make reference to Sabbath keeping, feast days, etc…. Rather he refers to loving one another (1 John 2:3-11)

When Paul talks about the liberty of believers when it comes to what we eat and drink and the days we worship God on, his discussion is preceded by a reference to the relationship between the spirit and the letter of the law, the spirit of the law referring to Christ’s commandment

Romans 13:8-10 8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Paul applies a principle laid out in Romans 13:8-10 which says, even though I am free to worship on a different day and eat what I want, love will sometimes direct us to forgo our liberty for the sake of someone who is weak in the faith

Romans 14:13-17 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

I derive from these passages that the heart and soul of God law is such that it sometimes transcends the details of it. (the kingdom isn’t eating and drinking…) Paul isn’t worried about the detail of keeping a certain day, but how we keep that day. What’s instructive is that Paul says that Sabbath-keeping (or feast-keeping) is not the sort of thing I ought to do no matter what, but rather it is that which I should or should not practice given the spirit of the law which says to love God and one another.

We derive this important application: If Sabbath-keeping or eating Kosher stumbles my brothers, then I think Paul would say he would forgo Sabbath keeping and Kosher eating in those circumstances (eating what set before us without question), because there’s a “greater” command that trumps these.

This is confirmed by James discussion of what it means to work when he says,

James 2:8 8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.

Add to all these observations the fact that Paul makes a distinction between one keeping the moral law and the ceremonial law, such that one can keep one and violate the other.

1 Corinthians 7:19 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

It is clear from this passage that we can’t argue that,

Since the Father commanded circumcision
And Jesus and the father are one
Therefore, Jesus commands circumcision.

for Paul argues that the Mosaic edict to be circumcised is not the commandment of God that we should be keeping.

Conclusion

There’s a lot more I would like to say, but I’ll reserve my comments. I think you have made some grand claims about a believers relationship to the Mosaic law - especially the suggestion that there is no viable support from Scripture for forgoing Sabbath-keeping.

I think that it may be beneficial for your study on Thursday nights to address those verses that Christians have always given for why they do not feel that Sabbath-keeping is binding on them. No one doubts that these things were binding for the ancients, but the question is whether they are binding now. Put differently, if we spend our time focusing on Old Testament passages about how we ought to keep the Sabbath, this doesn’t address the question of whether we should now.
P.S. Could you forward those references about anti-Semitism in the church in the first-few centuries (Origen, Chrysotom, etc…)

Blessings, Jake

From Messianic Pastor

Jake,

If it takes awhile for me to reply, don’t get discouraged, I’ve got a full plate right now but I’ll do my best. One thing that will help us both is if we can approach scripture from the same perspective. Every bit of scripture was written by and for those people who had and understood Torah from a perspective that was both taught and practiced in their societies. The Apostle Paul most especially taught from that perspective, after all he was a Pharisee of Pharisees. My understanding of ‘proofs’ that backed up my former beliefs about such subjects as the Shabbat and food issues etc. greatly changed when I really allowed myself to see that. My 20th century understanding and training simply did not jib with any semblance of that perspective. In your letter you expressed concern that the practices of the modern church don’t line up appropriately to that which would be pleasing to God. Categorically, many of them do not but that does not mean that none of them do. The real question is going to be, ‘Is anyone willing to actually correct the ones that don’t?’ Jews and Gentiles both are guilty of going to their own little corners and making up defenses for their own past and present faulty practices.

Men have for various reasons moved the practice of the faith far away from God’s directives, this may or may not apply to your personal actions, you will have to be the judge of that. I cannot speak on behalf of every Messianic Believer anymore than you can on behalf of all Christianity. I will answer as many of your objections as time permits but as I have already traveled the road that you are on I understand how people react when they get defensive about their faith. My hope is that if you continue to participate that you can trust the Lord to both protect you and at the same time direct you as He desires. Not everything that you have learned so far in your walk is absolute. Not everything that I have learned so far is absolute. Certainly some things are but for those things that are not, my hope is that God will through His grace enlighten us all.

Here are some references concerning some of the early church ‘fathers’ remarks and teachings.

Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Typho the Jew
John Chrysoston Against the Judaizers (8 homilies)
Martin Luther On the Jews and Their Lies
Origen Against Celsus II 8
Tertullian An Answer To The Jews

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia also gives some information and quotes if I remember right. It’s a so-so source for this information but Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism is well documented and easy to find.

History of Anti-Semitism
Christianity and Anti-Semitism

There are tons of Jewish writings on the subject and many are from Messianic perspectives. Jim Rickard already sent you information about the First Fruits of Zion organization and Tim Hegg. Through links etc. you can find book references and or articles that address these issues.

Anti-Semitism/anti-Judaism is not in anyway a post New Testament issue. The Exodus took place because of it and sets the example of what God will do in response to it. The book of Esther portrays those that hated the Jews just because of who they were -- God’s chosen people. A trace of Haman’s ancestry can be quite revealing. Satan has been at work amongst God’s people and those around them for some time in the area of deception that leads to hate. The adversary works both sides of the street in his efforts to destroy and thwart God’s plans for the return of Yeshua. Satan doesn’t care about winning, he knows that he has lost but he cares more about prolonging the anguish and despair amongst men through His deceptions in the Jewish and Christian communities. As long as he can keep the Christians practicing their religion, claiming to love the Lord but not doing the things that even the New Testament says prove that love [see1 John 2] , the witness to the Jewish community will not provoke them to enough jealousy to turn to Yeshua in mass. As long as the Jewish community can be deceived into believing the Christian Messiah is a completely anti-Torah God and they turn more and more into replacing God’s instructions for living with rabbinical substitutions there will be no unity of the faith with the church. Prophets have concentrated too long on all the bad things that have to happen before the Lord returns. It is time for a change. It is time to focus on the positive requirements, like the BRIDE making herself ready for the coming Lord. Most people don’t even have a clue as to what that means. Defensive posturing is a wasted effort, it’s time to be honest with ourselves and really apply our efforts to seeking and practicing truth no matter how long the church or the synagogue has done something.

Some of the worst 7 words that the church uses are, ‘We have always done it this way.’ And the second 7 worst words are like it, ‘We have never done it that way.’

I will address your concerns eventually. I am not into a personal bantering back and forth between us at the study. First of all it won’t completely satisfy you if your mind is already made up in a certain direction, second of all, not everyone there is there for that purpose. I am willing to meet with you in a personal forum different from this study to go over some of your concerns as time permits. Since the first actual subject of this study will be dealing with God’s appointed times, I think that most of your concerns about the Sabbath will be addressed.

In Yeshua


From Jake

Paul, thanks for taking the time to respond. When the study was pitched to me, it was described as a study on the Jewish roots of Christianity. When we arrived, and the paper was distributed, it became apparent that the study was about why Christianity ought to return to its Jewish roots. I'm sure that just a miscommunication, but it was a little unsettling. So, what exactly is the purpose of the study? What’s the rest of the group expecting?

As you understand being in the ministry, I'm bringing a bunch of guys to the study that I feel personally responsible for spiritually (I being their pastor). If I sense that something is being shared that needs clarification or challenge, I feel obligated to chime in; in a respectful manner of course. Bantering, No. Some form of dialogue, I would expect.

As to the topic, your making some big claims – namely that the Christian Church has been in error for the majority of her history. Now I grant this may be true (for the church is most obviously fallible), but this to me requires some strong evidence and not suggestions or circumstantial evidence. Some of what I read so far seems circumstantial. I’ll definitely take a look at those references.

As you saw in the previous email, I cited some very early fathers that speak in no uncertain terms about the relationship of Christianity and the Sabbath. I read “Fiscus Judaicus” and found it quite circumstantial. In particular, why would a church that was known for a sometimes overzealous desire to protect their fidelity to Jesus (almost looking for martyrdom) cave in to a tax that required them to renounce obedience to Jesus (if in fact custom-keeping is what it means to be faithful to Jesus), especially when the tax was only 2 days of wages for a year per person? Are they willing to die but not pay a small tax. Instead, this strongly suggests that custom-keeping really wasn’t regarded as a part of one’s fidelity to Jesus in the earliest church.

Also, I am working through Hegg’s article on Romans 14. To be honest, I found a lot of circular reasoning and unsubstantiated claims. He says that Paul is clearly talking about Halachi differences. But he really doesn’t show how. Also, Nanos interpretation of the “weaker brother” is contextually weak at best.

I thought his treatment of Acts 11 was puzzling. Do you really think that the “unclean” animals were those Torah-permitted animals that weren’t Rabbinically slaughtered? Peter says “I’ve never have eaten anything unclean.” This would mean that Jesus only ate Rabbinically slaughtered animals (for Jesus and Peter ate together a lot); the same Jesus that was notorious for violating the Halachi convictions of his day. This seems highly unlikely. Also, doesn’t this ruin the analogy between unclean animals and Gentiles? If the animals that Peter was to eat weren’t really unclean, then was Jesus saying that the Gentiles were never unclean? Or, did he mean what he seems to mean: The Gentiles were truly unclean, and through the gospel they are made clean. In the same way, these meats were really unclean, and through the gospel they have been made clean.

I agree that context is critical. I love Scripture and history, and I desire with all of my heart to interpret Scripture in historical/grammatical/theological context. And although we all come to the table with presuppositions, I try to approach things as objectively as I'm able. So I’m very open to dialogue and correction. I know that there are some things that I believe that are wrong, I’m just not exactly sure which beliefs are, and hopefully in the process of reducing them. There’s more I’d like to say.

Maybe we can discuss them tomorrow.

Blessings. Jake

A Brief Discussion of God’s Freewill and Ours

Friend

Hey Jake,

If Adam was in a state of freewill, prior to the fall, due to having moral equipoise, as Pink puts it, to either choose good or evil, without bias, at what point do you think God's sovereignty affects Adam's will to choose evil? If Adam's will is truly free, it would seem that the same paradox is involved between Adam and God, as the one that exists now, between all humanity and God, pertaining to sovereignty and freewill.

I'm wondering if the catalyst was the temptation by an external source, which was the serpent. Without the devil's influence, Adam's free will may have never been tested and found lacking. Wouldn't you think? And God, knowing this, used the serpent as part of His sovereign, eternal purpose. Thus, God, through the temptation, which was executed and succumbed to freely, carried out His purpose, sovereignly.

At some point, I'm trying to arrive at the final source. God's sovereignty is eternal; yet, at some point, in the name of justice, man's ultimate culpability must rest on his own choice (i.e., Adam's). Adam's descendants--I totally get it--have not had freewill, but their will is driven by the evil in their heart, thus enslaved to it. But Adam did. But, he was perfect, not holy; so not impervious to sin. He could have chosen righteousness, but didn't. I don't believe that was a random choice, that could have gone either way, if I believe in the sovereignty of God, but it was free. Was the temptation irresistible, much in the way grace is?

Jake

Hey my friend

I think that with Adam (pre-fall), God's sovereignty was expressed via foreknowledge rather than active foreordination. I'm not sure if that leads to the paradox you're referring to. If so, how so?

I think I agree with your second paragraph, with one amendment: the first test of Adam's faithfulness was occasioned by a tree, the fruit of which he was forbidden to eat (the first 'thou shalt not'), regardless of the serpent. The serpent's temptation was move A & E to draw false inferences from God's prohibition (to make the commandments seem contrary to their happiness, as an expression of undue glory on God's part, etc...). Notice, there is one tree and two declarations about this tree: (1) "its unlawful" - God (2) "its lawful" - Satan. A & E's decision would boil down to who's word they trusted.

I think there's a difference between certainty and necessity. By "necessity" we mean that it could not have been otherwise. By "certainty" I mean that it will be one way rather than another, but not because an alternative was impossible (and also without specifying the grounds for its inevitability - prescience or active foreordination). Everything that is necessary is certain, but not everything that is certain is necessary. Adam's fall was "certain," but not "necessary." There are few things that are "necessary," all of which are rooted in God's nature, as in "God is necessarily good" (it's impossible for God not to be good). Now, whatever has happened and will happen is "certain" due to God's sovereignty - 'he predestines everything that comes to pass' (WCF) Given that God's sovereignty may be expressed in two ways: through prescience or active foreordination, therefore a thing may be "certain" for one of these two reasons.

Thoughts?

Friend

First, on your comment: God's sovereignty was expressed via foreknowledge rather than active foreordination. I'm not sure if that leads to the paradox you're referring to. If so, how so?

Isn't, according to Calvinism, foreknowledge and foreordination the same thing? (cf. Rom 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:20)

Isn't foreknowledge, in the prescience sense, the same way an Arminian understands it, that God merely knows what will take place and predestine it, based on that foreknowledge? If that's the case, then, to me, the paradox is the same for Adam, as it is for post-Adamic humanity, when trying to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's (supposed) free choice; God merely knew what was going to take place with Adam's temptation and fall, but didn't necessarily bring it about.

Now, I understand your 'necessity vs. certainty' analogy; you're saying Adam's predestination was certain, rather than necessary. So, given that all the proper ingredients, or variables, were put in place, the desired (will of God) outcome will be achieved with certainty? And is this what you are also saying about our own predestination? Is it, for us, as well, a matter of certainty and not necessity? So, when God chooses us in Him before the foundations of the world, He, of certainty, or of necessity, ordains us?

But, getting back to Adam, so what you're saying is that God, with certainty, not necessity, sovereignly brought about His plan, that Adam would fall by his temptation, by working the combination of circumstances that would guarantee that end result, according to prescience, or God's knowledge ahead of time, that it would so occur?

Jake

Calvinism and Arminianism both teach that (1) God predestines all things that happen, (2) God predestines all things in two different ways:

(a) actively (e.g. creation) and
(b) passively (i.e. prescience).

What they disagree on is what "things" are included in (a) and (b). Arminians will put more far more things in (b) than Calvinists. And the Calvinists will put more things in (a) than the Arminians.

But here's the kicker, both agree that the fall of man belongs in (b).

Do you think that (b) creates a paradox? What precisely are the truths that seem to cancel each other out?

Friend

It's interesting to me that a prescience view of the Fall is held by both sides. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here, God employs a seemingly different kind of sovereignty than He does for election. God chose us in Him before the foundations of the world, according to Paul, which precedes the Fall. But, after His election of us, which you're saying is active (based on the fact that humanity would not have freewill), God acts toward Adam in a passive sovereignty.

We were chosen before the foundations of the world, from all eternity past, to be found in Christ, according to the sovereignty of God and His unconditional election. Yet, with Adam, who was given freewill, with equipoise, to freely choose without bias, God takes a passive sovereignty, to work circumstances out, according to prescience. Wouldn't an immutable God continue to do the same for post-Adamic humanity?

The paradox, to me, is a Calvinistic sovereignty and an Arminian sovereignty coexisting. It makes sense that we, who have no freewill, are foreknown, elected, predestined and irresistibly drawn by God's grace; it wouldn't make sense, that God would be able to do all those things, if we had freewill. With Adam's freewill, these things seem more susceptible to randomness of Adam's actions, unless God is completely "active" in the Fall.

Jake

It's interesting to me that a prescience view of the Fall is held by both sides. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here, God employs a seemingly different kind of sovereignty than He does for election. God chose us in Him before the foundations of the world, according to Paul, which precedes the Fall. But, after His election of us, which you're saying is active (based on the fact that humanity would not have freewill), God acts toward Adam in a passive sovereignty.

I think that's a good summary of the Reformed position.

We were chosen before the foundations of the world, from all eternity past, to be found in Christ, according to the sovereignty of God and His unconditional election. Yet, with Adam, who was given freewill, with equipoise, to freely choose without bias, God takes a passive sovereignty, to work circumstances out, according to prescience. Wouldn't an immutable God continue to do the same for post-Adamic humanity?

I don't see a link between God's immutability and His being incapable of toggling back and forth between active and passive predestination. Perhaps you can develop that for me a bit.

If God continued to order the events of humanity post-fall according to his passive sovereignty, then unfortunately none would come to possess eternal life, given that the fall ruined the particular form of freedom that A & E possess. Now being inclined only towards unrighteousness, God would merely foresee their damnation. The rescue of the elect would take an active decree of God.

The paradox, to me, is a Calvinistic sovereignty and an Arminian sovereignty coexisting. It makes sense that we, who have no freewill, are foreknown, elected, predestined and irresistibly drawn by God's grace; it wouldn't make sense, that God would be able to do all those things, if we had freewill. With Adam's freewill, these things seem more susceptible to randomness of Adam's actions, unless God is completely "active" in the Fall.

If I'm reading you correctly, your assumption is that Edenic freedom would make election of anything unstable, for humans could always do otherwise. In this, I think you are accenting a common issue related to sovereignty and freedom.

The problem, as I see it, is that as the alternative, one then must hold to a hard determinism/fatalism of all things if God is said to have control of all things. I think that goes beyond the bounds of Scripture.

A Brief and Candid Conversation About Doubt

I have a good friend that has been seriously struggling with his faith lately (perhaps even losing it). Recently he posted an article entitled, "Empty: Some observations from Genesis," which contains some critical remarks on the narrative found in Genesis 3. With his gracious permission, I have included his post, as well as much of the candid conversation that we had over the matter. We hope that this might be of some help for others who are wrestling with doubt.

My Friend

I spoke with a good friend earlier in the week about who/Who was ultimately responsible for my salvation from sin. I have not come to any kind of conclusion as to the truthfulness of Christianity, or any other major religion for that matter. Theologically speaking, however, I should be able to reason my way to an answer to the above question. First and foremost, the issue at hand is not who/Who saves me, but rather, "Why do I need saving?” Reading through the first few chapters of Genesis lead me to several observations.

Apparently, there were several choices made that eventually led to eating the forbidden fruit and receiving the knowledge of good and evil. I feel the final choice to eat of the fruit, to be the original sin. It is a sin-filled act because it went against a direct order from God. Therefore, up until the point of actually committing the act of sin, Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil. God made it clear to Adam that he would die after eating said fruit. He did not say that his choosing to eat the fruit would be sinful in any way. After all, Adam had no knowledge of sin. I might be able to assume that Adam knew death was not something to be wished for. If that was the case, his only motivation to not eat the fruit would have had nothing to do with the fact that it was sinful. It would have had everything to do with Adam fearing death. Eve is in a similar situation, being told that eating of that tree would bring about death. Essentially, God is telling them not to eat of the fruit because death is bad, not because a violation of His law is sinful.

My next observation is towards the condition of nakedness. Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness initially. It could be that they, not possessing the knowledge of good and evil, did not attribute public nakedness to be either something that was good or evil. They were very likely indifferent to the matter. If they felt the need to cover themselves with fig leaves after the original sin, then the state of being naked before God is evil. Am I to believe that God was letting Adam and Eve partake in a form of bliss that, under the umbrella of good and evil, would require fig leaves? All I have to go by is that before eating of the fruit, their nakedness was embraced, and after the fruit was consumed, it was not. I cannot accept that this God would operate under the cliché, "Ignorance is bliss". One can only begin to imagine the things Adam and Eve might have done should they not have eaten the fruit.

My third observation is that humans are not the only species that took a beating because of Adam and Eve's foul up. Apparently, (and don't let them know, they could harbor bad feelings) serpents were punished. "You [are] cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life." Genesis 3:14. I am sorry, I had to joke a little there; this whole topic is becoming rather serious. All joking aside however, the serpent received punishment for his act of deceit. This leads me to believe that God understood it was not exclusively Adam or Eve's fault. If humans today are under God's wrath, should they not repent, they (we) are paying a great price for something that is not entirely our fault. Actually, it is even more not our fault since we are generations removed from Adam and Eve. Serpents should face a fate far more worse than we will, but it seems that serpents these days do what they are going to do, without trying to bring religion into the mix. They eat, they sleep, they reproduce and they die. They do not seem to be so interested in saving themselves.

Next, it appears that God conveniently left out the whole Tree of Life bit. Adam was on a 'Need to know' basis and, well, he did not need to know. For those who do not know, this tree would give the consumer eternal life. "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- Geneis 3:22. Now, if you were reading Genesis from beginning to end, you might, like me, be led to believe that Adam and Eve were already going to live forever. If not, then you must accept that when God told Adam that he would surely die if he ate of the fruit, Adam would have thought, "...well, I am going to die anyway, so WTF." Or, Adam was ignorant to his own finite existence, in which case, is just cruel. So Adam was ignorant, he was reminded of something he already knew, or he was an eternal being already. I doubt the latter, otherwise, why have a Tree of Life. The tree of life was around before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit.

So here I am today, and there you are. Theologically speaking, we exist now, but when we die, we face eternal joy or eternal damnation. If I want eternal joy, I am to repent of my sin and accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If I want eternal damnation, well, I do not have to even want it. Apparently, that is the default condition. So, to come back to my original question, I need saving because of someone else’s' foul up. They only fouled up because of the deceit of the serpent. They had no filter by which to determine an act as sinful any more than a child is able to determine the nature of Grand Theft Auto as being bad or sinful. It seems that the early chapters of Genesis are a comedy of errors, the least of which were Adam and Eve's fault. I cannot reasonably accept Genesis in a literal way. Even if I could, I should not be held responsible for someone else's actions. If I indeed have an eternal spirit, it is worth much more, and should have no bearing on the mistakes of the first humans.

Jake

Hey my friend, I saw your post advertized on FB. I’m going to offer my critique and some candid words on the back end. I do so out of love for you my friend. Please excuse spelling and grammatical mistakes, as you will find many.

Critique

You suggest that the text teaches that Adam and Eve (‘A&E’ from here on out) had no moral sense, that “they did not know the difference between good and evil,” perhaps possessing a blissful ignorance. I think that you derive that from vss. 5, 7, and 22. I think however that this interpretation is simplistic for the following reason:

•“Knowledge” is a multifaceted concept in Hebraic thought. To know x, may involve conceptual and experiential dimensions. I may know about sex after Sex Ed, but its when I have it that I know about sex. Adam is said to “know” his wife, meaning a level of intimacy, not the acquisition of information not previously possessed. So, it is possible that Adam and Eve, though they had a knowledge of right and wrong in one way, did not have it in another (theory and experience perhaps). This fits well with the passage.

•In the previous two chapters man is marked with the imago dei (the image of God), by which man, although possessing many similarities with the animal world, is raised in dignity and differentiated by attributes not possessed by the rest of the animal kingdom in such heightened degree. One key demarcation is morality.

•If morality meant nothing to A & E like “;f;eeffee;;;” means nothing to us, then the narrative of Genesis 3 doesn’t make sense at all. Vs.2, “You shall not eat from any tree…?” Eve, if ignorant of morality proper, should have responded, “What do you mean by “shall not…”. Moral “oughtness” would be as meaningless as chicken scratches. And yet Eve relays enough conviction about right and wrong to waver at the serpent’s suggestions (vs.2). When God doles out particular punishments, he chides Adam for disobeying what he had “commanded” him (vs.17). Clearly, they were moral beings knowing the command of God, and yet spurned it at the suggestion of enlightenment.

•Consider that it was the serpent that said, “For God knows that in the day that you eat it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (vs.5). Your premise presupposes a certain interpretation of the serpent (taking him at face value). Remember, he is filled with half-truths, equivocations, and conflations. The point of the narrative is that the serpent was deceptive in this. Even in verse 22, we might take God’s statement to be bit of irony, “Behold” after stripped of their dignity, spoiled with sin, “man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” As if to say, “you listened to the serpent because of the promise of exaltation to God-like status (which was the very cause of Satan’s fall himself – Isaiah 14:14; Ezek 28:2), and instead of rising, you’ve fallen in shame.”

•A & E certainly knew that partaking of the fruit of that particular tree was sinful. What made their transgression especially heinous was due to considerations like these: (1) God made obedience so easy: what a light burden, that in the midst of such abundance, God should mark one as the test of faithfulness. The easier the obedience, the greater the punishment when there is disobedience. (2) Their action was a defiance of God’s authority so as to establish their own. Pride, the undue exaltation of a person, was the first sin. (3) They forfeited their dominion to a lesser creature, God having established A& E to be vice-regents over all creatures, even the supernatural.

As to the “shame” of nakedness, I also think your treatment is too simple and unfair to the text. Upon sinning, A & E knew they were naked and felt shame. The passage doesn’t mean to communicate that A & E didn’t recognize that one had an outy and the other an inny. Or that when they ate, they said, “Oh &$#&, I thought I had been wearing clothes this whole time.” Again, you’re not appreciating the word “knowledge.”

I particularly like Augustine’s treatment of this passage. He gives a very plausible explanation that when A & E refused to have God as their sovereign, God repaid the compliment by taking away A & E’s sovereignty over their bodies. This meant that appetites that were under their control were no longer under the power of their wills, one appetite being the sexual appetite (which the text hints at). Our inability to master our sexuality is a reminder of a forfeited dominion: ours under God’s and over creation (including our bodies).

You say, “it appears that God conveniently left out the whole Tree of Life bit.” I don’t think you are being fair to the text. This tree was a pledge of that immortal life with which obedience should be rewarded. With his disobedience, he lost all claim to this tree; and therefore, that he might not eat of it or delude himself with the idea that eating of it would restore what he had forfeited, the Lord sent him forth from the garden.

As to moral culpability, I think it is very clear from the text that the fall wasn’t exclusively laid at the feet of A & E, as is evidenced by the punishments doled out to each offender in the crime. As to how we are held responsible, keep in mind that Scripture teaches that A & E do have a greater responsibility before God because of their position as head of the human race and the how easy God made righteousness for them. With that said, Scripture also teaches that they are the fountain of humanity, and we are the stream. If the fountain is corrupt, so is the stream. John Locke, Jonathan Edwards, and many others have rightly argued that original sin is one of the most empirically verifiable doctrines. If morality means anything and “oughtness” should govern humanity, we desperately fall short of it. And though in one sense we clearly see this is a default position of our nature, and yet if we take any particular action where we sinned, our willful involvement in that activity should move a person to be careful about labels of determinism and fatalism.

I’m sympathetic to the difficulty of feeling like you’re punished for the sin of another. I think that our Western obsession with individualism robs vicarious realities from our worldview. We know nothing of the Hebraic and Eastern concepts of solidarity, oneness, and vicariousness. It may sound strange to your ears, it hasn’t sounded strange to countless cultures. This is why the Hebrews, with great joy, looked for a second Adam whose obedience to God would be counted to them as righteousness.

A Candid Assessment

Let me end with a few observations on your handling of the text. You start out your blog talking about theologically reasoning to a conclusion, indicating objectivity in your pursuit. You end your blog by saying “I cannot reasonably accept Genesis in a literal way.”

My friend, with all due respect, you have been extremely casual with your handling of this passage; you have not been reasonable. I would suspect that you consulted no commentaries or theological works on this passage and the doctrine of original sin (e.g., Edwards, In Defense of the Doctrine of Original Sin). I sensed no objectivity or principle of charity with which the critical thinking strives after. To be honest, it seems like you are emoting and calling it reason. This is all a bad foundation for concluding “I cannot accept Genesis in a literal way…” Make sure that your premises support your conclusions.

My friend, I know you are struggling with your faith. I understand that. But I sense that your doubt is bending your use of reason and critical thinking. I’m not saying that a person using their reason will come to my conclusions, but what I’m say is that they wouldn’t make the points you did. May I encourage you, start doubting your doubting a little more. The more you suspect your own reasoning, the better. It will cause your conclusions to be crisper and forceful. Step outside of your observations and lean on other folks who have wrestled with concepts that you never will and can. Use the fruit of their labor so that you won’t have to strive in vain.

Your friend who is for you.

Jake

My Friend

Hello Jake,

While I am going to really think about what you wrote, I do not feel it necessary to try to disagree with it. In my doubts, I have found that I tend to question everything. While I will not just take what you wrote at face value, I do not see the point in me trying to dissect the text anymore than you already have for me. You see, I approached the text, as you said, casually. This allowed me to possibly find something that was never there to begin with. Either way, your response brought up an important point. I think it is safe to say that even some of the most 'on fire' Christians might not even consider in their lifetime the casual, questionable things I saw in Genesis. That is great for them, but someone like me who is seriously doubting, and even more, lacking the theological sense that I feel you have, how am I suppose to read the text and see the same thing you do? How am I suppose to be aware of all the Hebraic words and or what they were really trying to say. I had no idea how Hebrew culture affected their literature or they way they wrote. I struggle with the idea that God uses literature to reveal Himself to us. People look at the Bible and come up with all sorts of interpretations and translations. Would not God, in wanting to reach the masses use a method of revelation that is common to all people, something they can all understand? Especially considering all the Gentiles that He knew would come. We do not grow up with the dedication to scripture as Jews have and still do. I use to read Christian apologetic, and feel convinced that Christianity was the right way. Now that I read Non-Christian material, I feel just as convinced...and it is maddening I tell you!! I admire you for your commitment to Christ, and I think deep down, I envy that passion. Does not God, if He is, know that all He would need to do for me to believe again and serve Him is "X". If He would just do that, I would be much more of an effective tool for His Will, than I am now, wallowing around in doubt. This is truly not what I thought my life would be turning out like. Take care, and thank you again for your openness.

Jake

I appreciate your honesty and humility. Perhaps God could have used something other than literature to communicate, but it seems like we're the kinds of creatures that communicate with words. Once you string a bunch of words together and write them down, you have literature and all of the elements involved (including culture, grammar, syntax, semantics, interpretation). Language is common to all people, and therefore a book is a sufficient option to communicate. Granted, the book is set in different cultural milieus, but I don't think that the cultural elements eclipse the fundamental message that God wants people to hear (though having a rich understanding of these cultural dimensions will give you a richer understanding of the fundamental message).

"Does not God, if He is, know that all He would need to do for me to believe again and serve Him is "X"."

I wonder about this statement. What if you are wrong. What if, even though God does "x" for you, you still wouldn't believe (e.g. Matthew 16:1-4). Or, what if God doesn't want "x" to be that thing without which you won't believe? Put differently, what if God doesn't want you to believe in him on that particular basis (though otherwise it is not an irrelevant component for belief)?

As I mentioned before, I think there's something not right with the standard that you have set for believing Christianity. I can't put my finger on it right now, but maybe its one of these: (1) It would seem to make "belief" into something different. I don't have "faith" or "hope" that circles are round. That's just a fact imposed on me. There's no faith-like virtue in this. If God were something as empirical as a oxygen, it seems to undercut something important about the pursuit of God by man. (2) I suspect that the standard of seeing or touching would undercut a lot of precious things we believe in the life (e.g. love, desire, imagination), as well as ways we know (e.g. intuition). (3) A psychologist could always step in and question the most stark and clear "displays" of God as being a hallucination, a dream, or a psychotic fit (how many people have seen divine personages at Patton State Hospital). (4) A philosopher will say that you can never step outside of your 5 senses to see whether or not your 5 senses are reliable. And so if you did have some type of perception of God (visual and audio), you can't be justified in this belief without assuming the reliability of your senses, which is a unjustified assumption.

I appreciate your openness.

Jake

Before You Judge Another, Ask Yourself...

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7:1-2)

Contrary to how many interpret this passage, judgment isn't forbidden in Scripture, bad judgments are. “First take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers” (Matt 7:5). A few verses later, we are commanded to judge the actions of putative prophets (7:15-20) to determine their spiritual condition. In the law, to refrain from pointing out sin in others is an act of hatred: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt” (Lev 19:17). Which is to say true friends will point out the junk in our lives out of concern for us. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6). The Psalmist invites such scrutiny in his own life as he realizes that it’s for his own good. “Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; It is oil upon the head; Do not let my head refuse it, For still my prayer is against their wicked deeds” (Psalm 141:5). Because Paul loved Peter and the church, he rebuked him openly (Gal 2:11). If a church loves their pastors, they’ll rebuke those pastors (1 Tim. 5:20). If a pastor loves his church, he will rebuke the church (2 Tim 4:2).

So judgment (by which Scripture means assessing and confronting moral failure in the lives of people) is not only permissible in Scripture, it’s commanded. Refraining from judgment is bad. However, Jesus warns sternly about hypocritical judgment and indicates the ease with which we can exaggerate the faults of others and minimize our own. Therefore, before you confront another, ask yourself these questions to determine whether your judgment will be right or wrong:

• Am I judging out of genuine concern and passion for God's glory, or because I'm concerned about my own?
• Deep down, do I judge another's sin to feel better about myself?
• Am I really seeking the good of the person I pass judgment on?
• Have I labored in prayer and Bible study to ensure that my judgment is correct?
• Have I scrutinized my failings with the same intensity that I have another’s?
• Do I respond to another's judgment in the way I expect others to respond to mine?
• Am I as quick to point out goodness in others as I have been to point out their faults?
• Am I quick to see and admit fault in my best actions?
• Am I strategic in how I address wrong, seeking God for the best way to effect restoration?
• I’m I broken over my brother’s faults?

Paul’s sums the heart, approach, and execution of moral confrontation in Galatians:

Galatians 6:1-4 “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another.

Feasting on the Will of God (Matthew 4:3&4)

by JM

"If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread" (Matthew 4:3).

Here's another way of capturing the temptation: "since you have the power and position of deity (being co-equal and co-majestic with the Father), shortcut this period of dedication to the Father." "Jesus, there's no need for complete surrender to the Father, partial obedience will do. It's legal: you're the son of God."

Jesus answered and said,

"it is written, man shall not live on bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Jesus is the Son of God. This was not at issue in the temptation. The passage would be better rendered, "Since you are the Son of God, command...." Satan's tactic was to eclipse Jesus' humanity with his divinity, and therefore to undermine Christ's identification and mediation for a fallen humanity (this is why a thousand heresies seek to darken the relationship of Christ's divine nature and human nature). As Son of God, Jesus needed no fasting, no testing, no tempting. But as Son of Man, he must learn obedience through the things which he has suffered.

Our second Adam must not live on bread alone, but every word of God. Which is to say, given the options of (1) excercising his authority in such a way that fails to fully acknowledge the Father as a man, or (2) relinquishing the power and the comfort of Sonship so as to maintain a complete and undiluted devotion, Jesus declares he'll always choose the later.

"Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me...I have come to do your will of God" (Hebrews 10:5-9)

Jesus says in so many words, "I will go hungry, undergo demonic assault, experience mockings, scourgings, crucifixition, and death if it means staying true to the Father, because doing the will of God is my ulitmate food, affirmation, comfort, glory, and life."

Consider the application: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus..." (Philippians 2:4).

Do you find great delight, as Jesus did, in obedience to God even when such obedience may mean a fasting from your will and comfort (which may be legal and moral in certain contexts)? Do you find such great delight in God's Will that even when disobedience is easy and pleasurable and within hand's reach, yet you choose the fast? This question is remarkably profound, especially in light of the reference Jesus uses: Deuteronomy 8:3 -

"He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD."

Notice that the Israelites' fast was compelled by God. God eliminated the possibility of the Jews eating anything except Manna (a type of Jesus - John 6) and drinking from anything except the rock (another type of Jesus - 1 Cor. 10:4).

Why the compulsion? Why the elimination of "freedom?"

Because there was no significant hunger for God resident within His people that would compel them to eat manna, and manna only, even should quail sweep through the camp in great abudance (consider that even when God did send quail, this was done out of judgment and not mercy). Given the option of quail, they'll abandon manna everytime. Given the option of sin or Christ, some will choose sin every time. In short, they had no true freedom. Their appetites were shackled by sin.

Consequently, God enforces limitations on the Jews until they recognize such limitations to be liberations; until they realize that the greater glory is seen when a man or a woman enforces these limitations on themselves rather than God giving no other choice. Like the Son of Man who, although perfectly within his right to assert his divine nature, refuses to exercise that right because of how it would have undermined the Father. The God/man hungered for the Father's glory more than his own, even though such a regard would cause unimaginable physical and spiritual angst.

Do you, as me, desire for that heaven-born appetite that will forgo all earthly pleasures should they even hint towards undermining the all-sufficiency of the Father? Do you, as me, find the ancient Israelite lurking within your heart, quick to hand Jesus over for thirty piece of silver and abandon manna at the sound of rustling feathers in the distance? Let's be quicker to embrace the pain of abstention at the slightest hint of sin than we have been to embrace sin at the slightest hint of pleasure. May God match our appetites with his glory.

Selah

Jake

'cliff notes on theology' continued: the discussion

The following discussion was generated after a posting called "Cliff Notes of Theology: Why are these books in the Bible and not others?"

Jeremiah

Interestingly the "extra" books have been a part of the Septuigant from the beginning, and have been considered canonical since the before late 4th century, when the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. References in Acts, and Jude are made to passages found in Books considered apochraphal by Protestants. As I have heard it explained, Luther wanted to match the Masoretic canon, which was only 39 books, so he threw out the "extras". Rome considered them Extra-canonical before Trent, but the Eastern Orthodox have always called them Canon.

Scott

I think, beyond traditional recognition, a great part of the determination of canonization, was how the writings in question bore consistency with the rest of Scripture, against which, they fell short.

Jake

I'm aware of the inclusion of the extra books in the Septuagint, but I guess that raises the question, Was the inclusion meant to indicate canonicity? Often helpful books were appended to translations in the way that notes are appended to study bibles or commentaries are to Bible software. I've heard of bibles distributed early in the church to which was attached the epistle of clement, the shepherd of hermes..without indicated the inspiration of these works. So, were the Alexandrians attempting to define or redefine the canon, or offer a helpful translation? It might be helpful to consider how the Jews as a larger religious community regarded these writings. I think the evidence is pretty strong that they considered their 22books (our 39) as the totality of OT canon (e.g. Jamnia). And so we can interpret their inclusion of these "extras" as helpful, but not necessarily inspired. This is also confirmed by early church fathers like Jerome, Cyril, Origen...

Yvonna

I thought the extra books were considered helpful, but not God breathed or God inspired. Please correct me if I am wrong Pastor Jake.

Jeremiah

Not all of the earliest Church Fathers (Origen not being considered a "father" by the East in later centuries) agreed on the same Canon. It wasn't until nearly the end of the 4th century that we see a final consensus on the canon. I believe the East has, since that time, considered the extras of the OT Canon as canon.

The other thing to consider, in discussing the Eastern Orthodox, is the fact that Holy Tradition is considered an equal source of Apostolic Doctrine as the Scriptures. The Traditions of the Apostles were first passed down and preserved orally before the Epistles and Gospels (then referred to as memoirs by early Fathers) began to circulate. In other words, the Church itself is the "pillar and ground of truth", with Scripture and Tradition as a "one-two punch" of its authority, both have their authorship in the Holy Spirit.

I guess to get to my point, The Orthodox Church considers them canon, so for them, that ends the discussion. Not that they check their minds at the door, because they have good scholarship to back up their claims too.

Jake

Bonnie, I think you're right.

Jeremiah, I think I'm safe in saying that the vast majority of early fathers held to the canon held by the vast majority of Jews (which considered the apocryphal books apocryphal). I see your point about the view of authority subscribed to by the O.C. (cool abbreviation), but I think the question becomes, "Do they have a particular tradition on the content of the canon that can be traced back to apostolic origins?" If so, what? This is also a relevant question for our Roman Catholic brothers who affirm doctrine x to be true because it can be traced to tradition rather to Scripture. Unfortunately, when pressed, they often retreat from tradition to the Church Magisterium. If you're interested, I wrote an article sometime back defending sola scriptura given the backdrop of RC claims related to authority. I spend some time looking at their argument from tradition. Here's the link: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/SurprisedbyWhat.html

Julio

I read the blog. Jake, good stuff. I like the length of the argument. Very pithy and to the point. I wish I had some more time to evaluate the Church Fathers you mentioned. I'm still working through Shelly's Church History in Plain Language.

Jeremiah

The traditions of the O.C. (I'll borrow your abbreviation) do in fact have their origins in the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude has accounts taken from the books in question. The history recounted by Stephen before his martyrdom in Acts is taken from Jewish tradition AND scripture. The fact is that we don't have obvious statements made by the Apostles about which books they deemed Scripture.

The other thing (and I pointed this out in my last statement) the Orthodox do not put Tradition and Scripture in opposition to one another. Scripture was born of the Traditions of the Church. They go hand in hand, and are both birthed of the Holy Spirit. You will not find a knowledge Orthodox who uses the terms Scripture and Tradition in an either/or context. They are always both/and. The question of authority lies in the Church itself, not in a magisterium.

Unfortunately for Rome, they separated themselves from the East nearly 1000 years ago. Having departed from Orthodoxy, they have added doctrine and tradition that are not Apostolic, which is why there was a Reformation.

Jake

I'm not sure I get how an apostle quoting from extra-canonical material should lead us to affirm that the traditions of the O.C. do in fact have their origins in the Apostles. Firstly, we still have to investigate whether there is good evidence that any particular tradition is in fact traced to an apostle (similar to the rigorous science of High Criticism for NT books). Secondly, even if we did discover some tradition, the question is whether this tradition authoritative. Just because an apostle said x, doesn't of necessity mean that x is inspired. He may have quoted from his grocery list or communicated compromise (Peter and the Judaizers). Properly speaking, the "writings" are always inspired, not the authors (2Tim 3:16-17). Thirdly, any tradition should be consistent with Scripture, otherwise Paul's call to Christians to test his message by Scripture would have been misdirected. Even Jude's citation of Enoch where the Lord is coming with is saints isn't a novelty. Fourthly, a inspired writer quoting from a source and including it in his writings does not mean that the source is inspired proper (as in, Titus 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.").

I would argue that the church wields divine authority to the extent that it handles the word of God properly. Officers of the church have authority, but when its in opposition with the Vox Dei, they seize to wield divine authority. This tells me that church authority is derivative and therefore secondary to Scripture

Jeremiah

The Apostles' quotations were just an example, although they do not prove conclusively in themselves the canonicity of a text. I have heard a Biblical scholar state that it is believed by some that the Canon of even the OT was not finalized until after the 1st century. This same scholar says the "extra canonical books" were not thrown out by the Jews until much later, and was in response to the Christian use of Scripture to prove Jesus is the Messiah. Her name is Eugenia Constantinou of the University of San Diego.

On the statement about authority, to say it is derivative creates a dichotomy that was never there in the early Church. The New Testament was written by the Church, and came from the Church (as it was established by the Apostles). Jesus, in sending the Holy Spirit, began a community called the Church. This same Holy Spirit guided the writing of the NT, and also guided the assembling of the NT by the Church. Remember, it was the Church which decided which books were in or out. Where was their authority? The guidance of the Holy Spirit through Tradition, prayer, conciliarity, the OT, Apostolic succession, among other things. This is all pre-Schism between East and West.

Authority, Tradition and Scripture work in unison in the life of the Church. Not wielded by one person as in the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox view of authority is in stark contrast to anything Protestants are willing to acknowledge, so we don't need to argue our points on that.

I enjoy discussing these issues, as they bring up very many good points.

Jake

I’m enjoying the discussion also. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at the history behind canonization. I would venture to say that books were often formally accepted far after they had been practically accepted. To illustrate, its like when my wife and I received certain legal documentation identifying the citizenship of our children sometime after they were born. They were citizens prior to this formalization, being recognized as such upon birth, and this was conveyed in a formal way through documentation (I’m sure there’s a better analogy – perhaps paying off a car and waiting to receive the title…)

I don’t think your observations about the relationship of church and scripture establish your offered confusion of the two (confusion of authority). The church was instrumental in the writing of Scripture, but so was the east wind in spitting the red sea, and Babylon in executing God’s judgment. An instrument of some effect should not be viewed as equally important as what it produces. For example, medicine is instrumental in health, but it’s not equal in importance to health. In fact the value of medicine is derivative from health. If no one could get healthy or sick, medicine ceases to be important. Note also that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 refer to both the human agents of inspiration and the product of inspiration. There is no hint in these passages of authority being conferred upon the human authors due to their role in inspiration. The conclusion of both passages is that Scripture is binding, not that the church (or a writer) is binding.

These remarks also apply to the process whereby the church discovered (not ‘decided’) which books were in and out. Did the church have authority? Yes. If the church formally recognizes canon by her authority, then does that make her authority on par with Scripture? No. If a man is commissioned by a king to discover a new land (let’s say America) and finds it, he is still no king of this land, nor any greater in authority after the discovery. So it is with the church and scripture. I affirm that the Holy Spirit providentially guided a fallible church to recognize infallible scripture, to which she must constantly subject all her enterprises.

I feel pretty confident (from these considerations and numerous passages) in affirming that there is a distinction between church and scripture, and that the authority of the church is derivative from God’s word.

Julio

Wow... right on. I couldn't agree more with @Jake.

Solomon

Go Maccabees!

Joshua

Such a good discussion. I've been enjoying the read. When I first brought this question about cannon to you Jake I was mostly drawn by not understanding why some of the histories of Gods peoples were called divine but others for no other reason I can understand are omitted. (Maccabees for instance.) Also I remember reading in one of the epistles Paul makes reference to another letter he wrote to another church that is not found in the scripture. (I'm drawing a blank on referencing this one, it's after 3 AM.) I'm often finding myself craving more of the stories of how the apostles lived, led and taught Christs ways.

As for what I know, it bears more questions. I know that you don't need the whole thing for salvation. I haven't been redeemed by my reading of the scripture. I still haven't read the whole thing yet I'm still saved. Also the Ethiopian ruler who was reading from Isaiah had a seemingly brief exposure to much scripture. It seems likely also that some of the early church had other teachings that were divinely inspired and obviously beneficial to their edification being that they were directly under the leadership to those authoritative ones, the apostles. Ask most Christians to name all 12 and they won't be able to. Most of the apostles seem to have nearly no effect on the church because if they did write, then it obviously wasn't inspired enough to last to where it matters to me.

I just get this impression that what we have is enough even though there could be (and maybe was) more that lack nothing in legitimacy. But I wonder all the more about the staunch "these 66, no more, no less" stance.

Jake

Josh, great observations. I was reminded as I read your statements of John's statement at the end of his gospel where he said that If all of what Jesus said and did were recorded, the libraries of the world could not contain them (21:25). Of course this is hyperbole, but the point is that writings are not nearly exhaustive, which may clue us in as to why God limited what was inspired (the human limitation to handle large amounts of data in a responsible and edifying way). Maybe.

I think the "no more no less" stance should refer to the topic of authority. So I would say that the 66 books are the highest authority in the church, no more and no less. Yet I would also insist that there are derivative forms of authority (church government; teachers, both ancient and contemporary) that should be consulted, and our incredibly helpful in understanding doctrine and practice. But when the two conflict, as if when a portion of the Apocrypha contains some doctrine that is at odds with the 66 (or your pastor for that matter), Scripture must carry the day. This was what was referred to by Luke's commendation of Bereans about his own oral and written teaching:

Acts 17:10-11 "10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

Luke states that the Bereans were praiseworthy in that they eagerly checked the oral teachings of Paul and Silas to see whether or not they spoke truth. Notice that if Scriptures did not contain concepts communicated by Paul and Silas, the Bereans would have concluded that the concepts themselves were dispensable (although not necessarily untrue).

Consider how this might relate to Roman Catholicism. If a Catholic claims that tradition differs in substance from the Holy Writ, and Paul and Silas were communicating these traditions, then the Bereans would have been lauded by Luke for dispensing with these traditions. Or, if Luke had believed that there are oral traditions which are on par with, but not necessarily equivalent in substance to Scripture, Luke would have withheld his praise from the Bereans for their actions. Or, if Paul and Silas believed the Catholic concept of authority, then they should have chastened the Bereans for not recognizing that outside of the written text, there is an oral tradition which is equal in authority and different in substance. In this case, Paul might have responded to their efforts by saying, “you may or may not find what we are talking about in the text. But that’s irrelevant because Scripture is not the only authority.” But we find no such things.

Jeremiah

Jake, your comparison of the Church with the east wind, or Babylon as instruments underscores a problem with modern Protestant Theology, and that is the gnostic notion that all things material are unimportant at best, and/or evil at worst. The creation may be an instrument, but we His Church are a temple unto God, the pillar and ground of truth, the Body of Him who filleth all in all.

Another fact that is not acknowledged in this discussion is the fact that Scripture must be interpreted. Let me take that back, it is acknowledged indirectly when you stated that the Bible is not exhaustive. Who has the authority to interpret it aright? Anyone who claims the Holy Spirit and is a Christian? Nearly 30,000 denominations and countless cults prove that's not the case. A Church that holds to the Traditions and Doctrines of the Apostles, and has a succession of Apostolic authority has the correct interpretation. Now, this does not say all others are therefore patently false. They have varying degrees of "fullness", so to speak. The reason your friend Josh wonders about "these 66 and no more" is because the modern churches have almost no continuity with history and tradition of the historic Church. Heck even modern "Reformed" Churches have a vastly different theology than the reformers. Just one example is the teaching on Mary. The reformes regarded her as the Mother of God, Ever-Virgin. No modern Protestants believe that, let alone early Church writings.

I think we would do well to examine our modern theology in the light of the earliest teachings of the Church on the Scriptures. That's not to say that just because it's old it's gold. But if it's true, it's not new. I know I am making some broad statements, but I don't have room to get into too much detail.

Jake

Jeremiah, comparing the protestant doctrine of inspiration to Gnosticism is like calling someone who recycles a left-wing tree-hugger: a gross mischaracterization. The protestant tradition has been recognized by scholarship as possessing a robust connection of sacred and secular. A part of the wild impact of Luther among the masses was the elevation of the blacksmith to priest in his trade, wielding the tools of his daily trade by God’s power for his glory. That seized the hearts of the peasant and pauper who, up to that time, viewed pope, pastor, and prince as the real instruments through which God really works. It certainly is no secret that most historians attribute sciences like higher criticism to a reformational view of general revelation as it relates to special revelation. It was from Germany and Geneva that the clergy began to take seriously the instrument of inspiration (by applying humanistic principles of literary analysis to the text and authors), not Rome or Constantinople.

Further, I think you missed my overall point. You contend that if the church is used by God to write scripture and to recognize it, it must wield an authority equal to it. My examples show that this is unwarranted move, not that the church is completely unimportant in the process (which I also was clear on). Reason and Scripture seem to move us to assert the primacy of Scripture in authority over against a church entrusted to steward this Scripture.

I don’t think your argument from division works. Both the RCC and EOC claim to have a pedigree of tradition which corrects conflicting interpretations, and yet…

(1) a person must interpret these traditions in order to figure out how they answer debatable doctrines. Rome says that in order to have a set body of doctrines, you must have an infallible interpreter. Of course this is terribly naïve and circular, for we all have to interpret the pope (more accurately, the church’s pronouncements) when they tell us what Scripture means. Do we then have to be infallible?

(2) we must have good reason to believe that any proffered tradition comes from an apostle (which most often boils down to, “It comes from Peter because we say so). Again, circular.

(3) one often finds the same debates brewing in the RCC and EOC that you find in Protestantism (e.g., those who will have a strong view of God’s sovereignty in salvation, and others who will emphasize human agency debating in back rooms).

(4) one finds the same disunity at the time of the apostles. I would assume that you believed that all of the elements necessary for unity existed in the early church (otherwise why would the apostles chide the churches for factions). And yet we see significant disunity then. For example, the Corinthian Church had Scripture, tradition, and the apostles present in their assembly. However, when Paul addressed the church in 55 A.D., it was fractured by factions (1:10). Various groups in the congregation formed in isolation to others, each one claiming to be closer to the truth. Some claimed to be of the Pauline school, others the Apollosian school, others of the Petrine persuasion, and still others claimed to be allied with Christ himself (1:12). In short, disparaging disunity. This factiousness continued up to and beyond the dawn of the second century, recorded for us by Clement who takes the Corinthians back to Paul’s writings, reminding them that nothing had changed on their part.

Given these observations, if a RC or EO wants to maintain that their view of authority is the kind that is necessary and sufficient for everything in Christian living, including unity, and yet the Corinthian church displays a seditious disunity in the midst of this tripartite authority, should we conclude that RC and OC are wrong in their doctrine of authority? We must if we follow the line of reasoning offered here. Now if RC or EO can maintain their view of authority in the midst of the seditious disunity in the Corinthian church (and beyond), then why can’t the Protestant maintain Sola Scriptura even though all of Christendom seems to be a macrocosm of Corinth? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You say, “The reason your friend Josh wonders about "these 66 and no more" is because the modern churches have almost no continuity with history and tradition of the historic Church.” Certainly reformers both pre and post Protestantism knew all about history and tradition, in fact they were steeped in it. It was precisely the unhealthy elevation of these that they so vigorously responded to. Their argument was that there wasn't the degree of continuity with the New Testament and the existing churches that should exist. Their reforms where born out of discontinuity that existed between church and ancient church history, particularly the New Testament. Their conviction (which I agree with) was that to the extent that you let up on the authority of the Word of God in your life and church, to that extent you’ll stray from it. And so any healthy church will always be in reformation, constantly being challenged and checked by Scripture.

Jeremiah

I was not comparing Protestant view of inspiration gnostic, but the view of the material creation. It is not an explicit comparison, but implicit. But that really wasn't my point.
Comparing the RC and the EO only goes as far as a surface comparison of what appears to be the same ritual and sacrament. There is, as a result of the Great Schism, a huge difference in the theology of the two. The West became rationalistic, forensic and juridical in it's understanding of Scripture, Tradition and Sacrament. History shows that when Rome broke from the East, her theology changed as well. Not completely, but there were novel inovations to the Apostolic Traditions. An objective look at the early Church Fathers in comparison to RC (Especially after the Middle Ages) will show a vast difference. But Compare the same to EO and you will not find significant differences.

Also, you stated one finds the same debates in RC and EO. Actually, the Dogmas of the EO are non-negotiable and have not changed. One has to look no further than Vatican I to see dogmas added to the RC that were not there in previous centuries. There are a lot of doctrinal differences in the RC and Protestantism. While there are many areas where the EO differ, doctrine is not one of them. That's not a "we're better than you," statement. Just an objective fact.
I don't see how the disunity in Corinth = EO being wrong about authority. Nothing in your argument necessitates that conclusion. A look at the history of the 7 Ecumenical Counsels shows that there was great debate, but eventual unity. Even RC and EO were one Church for over 1000 years.

But again, you come at this discussion with the idea that Rome = totally wrong, so therefore East must = wrong too. I generalize in an exaggerated fashion, but you know what I mean. I will give you that the Reformers responded to the excesses of Rome in the best way they knew. But the EO contends they threw the baby out with the bath water. Tradition and Scripture are not at odds with one another. Rome's excesses were a result of adding to and defiling Holy Tradition, which led to bogus interpretation of Scripture to back up their claims. The EO doesn't have to do that.

A look at the Church Fathers shows a Church that looks nothing like modern Protestantism. Nor, for that matter, modern Roman Catholicism. What it does look like is the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don't say that presumptuously. This is just from what I have been studying myself. Peter Gillquist and several others of Campus Crusade for Christ did the same study, and came up with the same conclusion. It's pretty fascinating.

Again, I don't paint Protestants and RC's as wrong outright. I just see that the EO have a more complete understanding of Scripture, Tradition, Sacrament and the Church. The Church does not need constant reformation, as we tend to think of it. She does need reminders, as did Israel before her.

Jake

Jeremiah, the context of comparing Protestantism to Gnosticism was related to my assertion that just as there is concurrence in history, there is concurrence in inspiration. Concurrence forces us to look at God work and human instrumentality. Regardless, I also think it is a gross mischaracterization that they were Gnostic about creation.

As to the comparison of the RC and EO, I’m definitely aware of the differences and wouldn’t want to confuse the two. The similarity is, however, the conviction that the church possesses an authority on par with Scripture because it was given through her apostles and prophets and collected by church officers. I think that this is an unwarranted step, as I have argued; most of the points being relevant for the RC and OC.

But let’s take the issue of uniformity of doctrine. For all the issues that divide the RC and PC (Protestant Churches), (1) In what way does the OC maintain uniformity? a) By having official positions on most contentious matters – A Robust Uniformity. b) By emphasizing essential and cardinal doctrines, while remaining silent or flexible on tertiary matters – A Mild Uniformity.

If it’s the former, then I’d be really interested to see how the OC works to ground their exhaustive official stances on all the particular minutia that Christians debate over. I have a suspicion that such justification would be less than convincing and would lapse back on claims of authority (because we say so).

If it’s the later, then it appears that there is a tolerance of difference because the OC is more interested in affiliation to the organizational side of the church. At this point, it would seem that the charge of rampant division is not as forceful as it was thought to be. As long as you affiliate with the organization, participate in its liturgies, confess the universal creeds and subscribe to a few doctrines that are deemed important, you’re OC. That sounds like my church, and a bunch of others as well.

This leads to a broader point. In my estimation, the OC is just another denomination like others. Instead of being the exception to the norm, they’re just another example of it (division). Unlike other denominations, they claim to be THE denomination, the purest expression of Christian faith and practice. This big claim deserves big justification. I don’t think there is.

My argument about Corinth was designed to show that if a person claims that division in the church is a sign of inadequate authority (as in the case of, “protestants are hopelessly divided because they don’t recognize the role of the church, church fathers… in interpreting Scripture”), they must assert something was inadequate the Paul/Corinth saga. But of course we don’t want to say that. Everything needed to maintain unity was present there, and yet there was no unity. Come to find out, this type of disunity existed not just in Corinth, but all over. The early church was a microcosm of the modern church. The church of Jerusalem adopted different liturgy, diet, expression, and had a different value for the role of OT in NT life. The Gentile churches were less stringent, viewed by some as libertines. The leaders of Jerusalem were tempted to say that their denomination was the purest denomination and had to be corrected, with some concessions. The examples abound.

The bigger point. My argument isn’t that the OC is necessarily wrong in their claim to authority from these observations, but that the presence of division doesn’t mean that they are right in their claim to authority; over and against protestants who don’t possess their particular formula for authority. Division doesn’t necessitate the inadequacy of Scripture being the primary and fundamental source of authority in the church. There was division then, there is division now.

I understand the OC feeling that the Reformers went too far in their evaluation of tradition, but of course the reformers would argue that they handled them well. They were quick to esteem church fathers and labored at understanding them, but also recognized that they too were teachers, fallible and ultimately subject to the scrutiny of Scripture.

The comparison of church fathers and modern expressions of church may be significant; it may not be. Having been to a few Orthodox Services, much of the liturgy appeares completely foreign to descriptions of church life in the NT (1Cor.14). I don’t discount the OC expression, but cringe at their conviction that somehow they have captured the model. Further, what church father at what age? One observes significant changes from 2nd century (in ecclesial and doctrinal expressions) from 6th century expressions.

I do agree that the church father exercised unity at the 7 councils, but remember that the topic was extremely narrow, and conclusion universally apply to the diversity of all churches today (with exception to Nicea pt. 2): the person of Christ. If they would have expanded their scope to address all issues dealt with in all churches, we would not find this same kind of unity. On essentials unity. But on non-essentials, can there be both charity and “division” like we see between the Jerusalem and Gentile churches. I think so. Unity, “yes.” I’m not so sure about the OC pursuit of uniformity.