Isolation and loneliness

In my life, I would say that the largest problems I face would be the feeling of isolation and loneliness. We all have our demons and ghosts that haunt and vex us, and these are my two. I have see no reason, except for the alienating effects of sin, for me to feel like I am the only one in the room despite the fact that I am in a large room with a rather copious amount of people. Today I had a rather intense case of this and I have been pushed into thought about it. I was riding in my car listening to the radio and I heard bands sing songs about people who are isolated and dealing with various issues, and I assume that this is no accident but, rather, it was divine providence. I have had to deal with this odd feeling for a long time and it is not an easy thing (As it is with every one and their personal problems). And while the cause of this can be circumstantial or completely random, the answer is always the same. You see, as I was riding along listening to the bands sing about different problems in life, whether it be problems with a girlfriend or parents or general teenage angst, there was always one common thread in every song: there was no answer, no solution to the problem. When man attempts to start from himself as being autonomous, he can never find an answer for his issues. Sure, man will try and try he will, but in the end the only thing left for him is silence and pain. However, I can start from the propositional truth of the Bible and come to substantial healing for my problems. Now I would like to point out the significance of the phrase "Substantial Healing". This is a very important phrase to you and me (If you, my reader, be in Christ) for this phrase accurately describes the state of a Christian in this world. The phrase avoids pessimism, for there is real healing going on in time and space, or in other words there is true healing now. The Christian's hope is not entirely in the next world, we can experience the blessing of Christ now. However, the use of the word "substantial" as the adjective in the phrase establishes what may be called Christian Realism. Let me submit to you that Christianity does not offer "total" healing in this life, but it does offer "substantial" healing. Life is never going to be perfect until we are glorified. Indeed, even our salvation is not completed in one sense because we have not yet received a glorified body. Yet, in this life we are justified, our sin has been wiped away and righteousness has been imputed to us, so that we can say we have been truly saved. It is not total yet, but it is substantial. In the same way our problems and strife will never be full done away with till we cross over the banks of Jordan into that blessed state of eternal life, but we can be truly healed right now and that healing can be substantial. We may struggle and fight with our demons, whether they be internal or external or both, but we can be assured that we will be healed. So, when I come to my own problems I can take my Christian base and apply it to the problem. Whether I am depressed or someone has wronged me I can lean on Christ and I will be held up. My World View allows me to take all the information that is thrown at me and, not only process it, but deal with it and produce results. And you can do this too, if your residence is in the City whose Builder and Foundation is Jesus Christ.

ReformationMan

The Protestant Work Ethic

In the name of the most Merciful High King of Heaven:

Greetings.

Today in my Bible class, if it should be called that, there was such a great travesty committed against the Word of Christ that I have determined it must be answered with a billowing fury of wrath. Today it was put forth that there is a sacred calling to "The Ministry" that is full time and quite different from other believer's callings. Is this true? Why yes, on one level, the office of Bishop is a high calling to which there is much responsibility and reward. This I will not deny, yet I think it is a foolish and pranting knave that says there is the "Holy Order of Full Time Ministry" while the rest of the body of Christ works at a "Secular Opus". I was shocked to hear this dichotomy in a "Nominally Protestant" class, and I say this because, at the heart of the matter, this is one of the things that forever separates the Biblical from the Papal. One of the greatest contributions of the Protestant Revival to the world was it's concept of work. There is a very good thesis done on this subject by Max Weber entitled The Protestant Work Ethic. The following link will take you to a web site where the book can be read: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/toc.html
The Catholics divided occupation into the "Holy Orders" of the clergy and monasticism and the lower, mundane, and secular jobs that, despite the fact that God has willed them to exist, are directly related to the flesh. Thomas Aquinas carries this same thought into his work. There is a book, The concept of Work: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, written by Herbert Applebaum which will lend proof to this point. Applebaum quotes a list, developed by a historian named LeGoff, of the lowest forms of work that were associated with the seven evil sins. The list does contain pimps, prostitutes, and justly so. However, some occupations like: doctors, surgeons, bankers, cooks, saddlers, also make the list for much more foolish reasons. The dish washer was the lowest on this list, even lower than pimps and whores, because it is a profession seen as dealing only with the unclean. (This book may be found online, however the url is too long to put in at the moment. So you will have to find that one yourself.) With this knowledge, one can understand how the Roman Church could tell the people that common man can not interpret the Bible without the trained clergy. Or how the Church could take the Bible and put a huge screen in front of it to keep the people from the Bible. This concept can not be found to be in the Bible at all, rather it is only in the dictates of men.
It was this concept of work that developed out of the monastic mentality that Luther broke with. He did not, nor could he be expected to, break completely with the thinking of his day, but he progressed toward the Biblical concept of a godly occupation. One authority on this subject, a man named Tilgher, stated that, "Protestantism is the moving force in the profound spiritual revolution which establishes work in the as the base key of life..." Luther did away with the concept that one work is superior to another, and put in its place the concept that whatever occupation that you have been placed in is pleasing to God. That a man, as long as he works the best he can and with the attitude of humble service to God, who works in the field glorifies and pleases God as much as the man that teaches the Scripture. The house wife washing dishes and wiping poop off the hind parts of her children is just as pleasing to the Lord as the missionary that goes to a foreign land. For Luther, the terms profession, vocation, and calling are all virtual synonyms. Therefore, Mister Tilgher concludes that, "Luther placed a crown on the sweaty forehead of labor. From his hands work came forth endowed with spiritual dignity." Please do not think Luther was perfect. He did not like profit, for he considered it to be in excessed, and he also thought that the work of the merchant was the work of the flesh. Despite his short comings he still came a long way from monastic catholicism. And it was Calvin and the Puritans that further developed the ideas of the Protestant Work Ethic into what it is today.
A minister should be compensated by the Church that he is a pastor of according to the teaching of Paul in I Timothy 5:18-19. However, it must also be noted that Paul would work in order that he might not be a burden on a congregation if he thought that situation called for it ( Acts 18:3; cf. with Acts 20: 34-35). Elders should be compensated, but there should be no distinction put between a job as "Secular" and a job as being "Sacred". The work of a pastor is a godly and honoring as the work of a housewife or a seamstress. The Bible does not put any dichotomy between working in the fields and working behind the desk of a pastor. If you fear the Lord and work to His glory you will be full filed by the works of your hands (Psalm 128:1-2). God has placed many different people in the Bride of Christ, some dig ditches, some flip burgers, some own businesses, and some teach the Word; but all have been called, all work for the glory of God, and all are part of God's providential plan. And in the end all Christian men and women have been called to the full time ministry.

The ReformationMan

Totaly Evil Google; And a Table Talk

Greetings;

Today I wish to speak on how evil it is to have blogger be taken over by that huge great whore of Babylon known as "Google". Yes, their search engine is most excellent , but I just went through the worst time of getting this stupid thing to work again. I had to change my name and password for some crazy reason and I almost lost the blog.... but not to worry for the Reformer is not going anywhere. Well, that is until "The Man" starts to censor people like myself... anyway that concludes my rant against Google.

Now, I wish to post a most interesting dialog from one of Martin Luther's Table Talks:

Dr. "Luther, if I believed like you, I would do anything I please. "

Luther: "Exactly. And as a child of Christ . . . what pleases you? "

I think that this is a fundamental point that must be made if one is to understand the doctrine of sanctification properly. The point of this very small, yet very profound, dialog can be summed up as this: 1) there is liberty in Christ, 2) this liberty, by necessity of the work of Regeneration, must be guided by a Christian conscious.
Let me fist put forth the doctrine of Liberty in Christ.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
(Colossians 2:13-17)

Yes it is true that in the olden times the people of God were committed to rules and regulations and ceremonies, but these were not an end of themselves. They were not a means of salvation: for Hebrews expressly states that no man was justified in the sight of God by the blood of bulls or animals.(Hebrews 10:1-4) Rather, these things were carefully designed by the Father to remind the people of their condition and of the ultimate sacrifice that His Son would make in His Life, Death, and Resurrection. Let me take this principle, if I may, and say that we should not set modern regulations for ourself today beyond that which the Scripture sets forth. I wish that I could paste the entire fourteenth chapter of the Book of Romans (I encourage you to read it yourself), but I shall quote only verse 17:" For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." The context is Paul discussing arguments that are within the Church that are not Scriptural. Some do not wish to eat or drink something while others do, but they were taking their own opinions and making them the law of God. Which, I must say, does not set very well with the Lord. The point of Christianity is not to make one big long list of do's and don'ts but, rather, it is to grow in grace and knowledge of Christ.
This brings me to the second point: that this liberty is guided by the Christian conscious. Paul, again in Romans 14, says that if someone wishes to eat meat then let him do it. If another only wishes to eat vegetables then let him do it. However, this does not extend to legalism. If I had a friend that had an abusive alcoholic father, and therefore did not like alcohol, I would never mention the word wine around him. I could not think of destroying a relationship with a brother over a silly beverage. Yet, if I went to dinner with someone who asked me not to drink because the Bible says it is a sin, I would most likely order a round for everyone in the establishment. Why? because it is totally different when someone has an issue and asks out of courtesy. It is a completely different thing when someone tries to make a non-essential issue a key point of Sanctification. That is one thing that I would never tolerate.(Of course all this is hypothetical because I don't drink. I am merely using this as an illustration.) And so Paul, instead of speaking laws and regulations, speaks to us the truth. Paul teaches us to do what we want to do on the grounds that we will naturally love our brothers and sisters in Christ if we are truly regenerate.The mind has been renewed, and we have passed from death unto life. We no longer live to our sinful will, but our wills have been-and are being- transformed to the will and mind of Christ.So, if we love God we will wish to do what He wills for us to do.Therefore, I leave you with this simple phrase: "Love God, and do as you will."


ReformationMan

Bridge to Terabithia

Greetings:

I was in the middle of cleaning my room on this Saturday afternoon when, at 3:16, I received a call from my friend Gene. He and his family were going to the movies to see "Bridge to Tereabithia" and then they were going to Atlanta Bread Co., and they wanted to know if I would go with them. I am not a huge fan of going to the movies, but I thought that it would be good to go and see what philosophy the Disney company was teaching in their modern films. I was also taken of the idea of going to Atlanta Bread Co. I could just see that warm Wy-Fi building as a shelter from the could. It was thirty six degrees outside with wind gusting up to twenty one miles per hour. And just the thought of that Caramel Macchiato was enough to send my taste buds into an ecstatic frenzy. So I said I would go.
We went to see the 4:15 showing which really started at 4:30 due to the previews and six different warnings to turn off all cellular phones before the movie starts. Now, there is several angles from which this movie can be discussed. I wish to look at the underlying Enlightenment philosophy of the movie and how the movie discussed Christ. The plot is a vary familiar one: a young boy has a large family that is agrarian and poor; he has trouble making friends until one girl comes in a changes his life. This girl, named Leslie, was the typical Indy: alternative, overdressed, and mis matched. She is the only daughter of two parents who are writers by profession. She has a vivid imagination and one could say that her basic maxim for life is, "Close your eyes, but keep your mind wide open." Now please do not mis understand me, I do not believe that we should be closed to everything and live in a shell with no imagination. The problem I find is how she, like most modern people, deal with Christ.
Jess and Leslie are coming home one day and she asks to go to church with him. Jess replies with, "Well, you have to wear a dress (something the Leslie is not prone to do) and it is not fun and you'll hate it." She has never gone and, out of curiosity decides to go. The scene opens with a white church on a country road. The only part of the service shown is the singing. The people all look like zombies and they are singing (if you could call it that) "The Old Rugged Cross". Later they are riding home in the back of a pick up truck and it is sunny spring day. The discussion turns to the service. Jess and his younger sister are not excited about the church: they think it is boring and something that is obligatory. Leslie disagrees with them saying that the story is beautify. Jess just says that God made Jesus die for vile sinners like us. Leslie responds in disbelief and Jess' sister says that if Leslie does not believe the Bible she will go to hell. Leslie spurns this idea saying, "I don't believe God damns anyone to hell for He is too busy running all of this."
The point of this story is what the philosophy of Leslie does to the Story of Christ. (The movie has more to do with Christ, but this instance has been arbitrarily chosen.) Her idea of keeping her mind open leads her to say that the story of Jesus is beautiful, but she will not accept an essential tenant of the Christian Faith: The justice of God. Granted, Jess and his sister poorly display the plight of man, but the fact remains that Jess accepts Christ in her own fashion. She takes the name of Christ and ascribes her own content to the name. What is the significance of a name? Nothing if then name stands for nothing. This is what our culture is doing to the Gospel. They are taking the name and religious connotation of Christ and inserting their own message into His mouth. By doing this they are turning the name of Christ into a content-less banner and making a god in their own image. We must be alert of this.

ReformationMan

Pain, the House of Sorrow, and the Joy of God

In the name of our most benevolent and merciful High Priest: greetings.

I have been reflecting on my current situation and that of others around me and I have seen everyone, almost everyone, is in some form of pain. Some people have more pain than others; while others have only been hurt once or twice, but very deeply. I suppose I should be glad for my pain, and for my friends going through pain. Now, I do not mean to come off as a Sadist, but I think there is legitimate grounds for this:

"A good name is better than precious ointment, and the day of death than the day of birth. It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools. For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fools; this also is vanity. Surely oppression drives the wise into madness, and a bribe corrupts the heart. Better is the end of a thing than its beginning, and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools. Say not, "Why were the former days better than these?" For it is not from wisdom that you ask this. Wisdom is good with an inheritance, an advantage to those who see the sun. For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it. Consider the work of God: who can make straight what he has made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him." (Ecclesiastes 7:1-14)

May the Lord add His blessings to His holy Word. Consider how absurd this is to say,"I am better in pain and affliction than I am in joy and mirth." That is an absurd saying, but only to our flesh. No one desires pain, but we need it. We will learn more through pain than anything else. Wisdom comes from the house of mourning, and wisdom will bring joy. Therefore, the source of joy is pain? Look at the last part of the verse that says rejoice in happiness, and yet we are to know that Christ is still in our pain. He orchestrates one as well as the other, and I can say this is very true. Twice I have been betrayed twice in my life. Both times it hurt more than I wish to say, but both times I learned to love Christ more. I found myself driven to learn more than I did before. Eventually, wounds will heal and we will come to the point that we can live with them in our memory. Yet, the wisdom that comes from the pain lasts for a life time. I will take the pain, Oh Lord, but give me more of You. As one Puritan man once said, "Lord, lay upon me a heavy burden; only give me the strength to bear it." Instead of holding on to your pain because you do not know what to do with it become wise from your pain. I have found it better to be in the house of mourning than in the house of joy.

ReformationMan

Kingdom of...uh...

Greetings,

In the name of Christ the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth I greet thee my brothers and sisters in blogging. It has been too long since my last post and I must repent and recant of this great error.

The Next post I plan on making will be on "Pain and the Christian". I have been working on it for a few days and I have began to write it. Therefore, it should follow much faster.

Today I wish to talk Dispensationalism, a topic that I hardly speak against (I say this with a hint of Sarcasm). There is a common theme among the "Old Guard" of Dispensationalism (Chaffer and C.I. Scofield) that there is a diffrence between the two terms "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God". This is not only a theological blunder of immanent proportions, but leads to a horrible system of terrorizing Scripture. Two verses will be considered to thwart this foolish distinction between the terms Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God.
Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. (Mat 4:12)

And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,
so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
"The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles--
the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned."
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mat 4:12-17)

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
(Mar 1:14-15)

When one reads this the general idea that the same thing is being spoken of in the terms Kingdom of God and kingdom of Heaven is apparent with any simple reading of the text. Yet, the Dispensationalist would tell us that these are two completely separate concepts. The Kingdom of Heaven, a term used only by Matthew, is when the Messiah was going to bring political autonomy and domination to the state of Israel. If the Jews had accepted this Kingdom the Lord would have started the Millennial Kingdom and sat on the thrown of His father David and reigned. When the Jews rejected this God produced the Church. The Church, that "Mystery" unforeseen in the Old Testament, is in the Kingdom of God and not the Kingdom of Heaven. To place the Church in the Kingdom of Heaven would be to destroy the deliberate dichotomy between the Old and New Testament and the division between the Church and Israel. My question in all of this is how can this be true in light of the two Scriptures above? Both verses speak of the beginning of Jesus' ministry and they can not be said to be in different places. They must be the same, but the Dispensationalist still says they are different.
If you were to use this same method of treating Scripture in all aspects of the Scripture you could come up with anything your depraved mind could conger up. The fact is that these are not the only two Scriptures that use the terms Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God Synonymously. There is a large list, look it up in a concordance.
The real problem is not just this error of interpretation, but how this system will affect other doctrines. If the church is totally separate from Israel, How can people in both parties be saved by Grace through Faith? They can't. The whole point of Dispensationalism is that the Old and New Testament, the Church and Israel, Mount Sinia and Mount Calvary, are so separate that they should not be saved in the same manner. If you read the systematic Theology of Lewis Sperry Chaffer you will see that he knows this fact. If the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are to be separated the the rest of the Bible must be separated too. This is the fatal error and heresy of Dispensationalism: that it divides the precious Word of God when it should look to unite.
I hope this study helps you understand my hatred of Dispensationalism. for a more in depth study go to
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/dispensationalism.html
I will be doing more detailed analysis of Dispensationalism in the future. I hope this is helpful.

Sola Gratia
Reformation Man