New Geneva

Audio books leading to the break of dawn

2008-05-21T23:27:00.000-07:00

I have been engaged in a study of apologetics recently, more specifically the "apologetic method" of Francis Schaeffer( Though I know he would hate any kind of formula with his name attached to it), and, by extension, I have been studying the definition "Presuppositional Apologetics" for a Bible study this Friday night, but in truth this post begins long ago at the budding of my freshman year...

I had just met my new roommate, Howard M. Wellons, a most ostentatious Episcopalian from North Carolina. As we got to know each other through the usual pleasantries of society, he informed me that he has to sleep with an audio-book, or his sleeping patter would be much disrupted considering audio-books were always involved in his nocturnal resting. I thought it would be somewhat annoying; however, most promptly, the concept grew on me, and now I must listen to something as I go to sleep. My selection, coming from my theological inclinations, had been to listen to church history lectures as I fade to dream land, yet this was too stimulating for me and I decided a change of venue was in order. I found lectures on the life and writings of C.S. Lewis, and began to think to myself that these would be interesting, yet not enough to keep me awake all night. I must conclude that my hypothesis was wrong, for it it now 2:37 A.M., and I am wide awake. Yet I do not think I would trade this time for any amount of sleep, for sleep can only rejuvenate the body... I was laying in bed trying to fall asleep when the lecturer proceeded to discuss Lewis' concept of "First and Second Things". Lewis describes his search for joy, and relates that he was always disappointed because his search was misdirected. He, before his conversion, looked for joy, but not what caused the joy. Lewis sought the side effect of the object rather than the object Himself. As an example, he spoke of his wife whom he loved dearly. He said that he could never love his wife if he loved her for her own sake. The more he "loved" her, the less he really loved her, for his wife is not "first", rather she is "second". One cannot love a creature if one does not first love the creator, and out of that "first" love, the "second" then flows. Loving someone for the sake of that person will turn into hatred, for it is unbridled. If God's reigns be not upon it and guide it, that "love" will be doomed to fail. And so, Lewis concluded that the death of his wife saved the both of them from a form of Idolatry, and was a blessing of God's providence.

Now, let me put my spin on this. Nothing in this universe is autonomous. No, not one thing. Everything that is, was, or is to come must be based on one of two presuppositions: The Holy Triune God, or Autonomous Man. Either one interprets anything and everything as God requires, or you try to form your own interpretation. No gray. Only Black or White.

Funny, how we humans try to compartmentalize life, when we really can not do it. I put the concept of Christ's Lordship over all in apologetics, but not in life. Not in love. Yet, the truth is, one cannot separate apologetics from life. One thing is true in both:No neutrality, no brute facts. In my life, I now see where I have loved because of the second thing, and not the first. I am guilty of my love beginning on earth and leading me to heaven. What a fool! Love, for anything or anyone, must begin with the Beginning, the Triune God who is there and who is not silent, and from that love, all others must flow. Evil must be hated, not because of what it is, but because of who God is. Heresy must be beaten with all violence, but only because of the character and holiness of God, not because it is "just wrong". As Christians we, I, must strive to subject all of life to God's sovereignty as Lord of all. All thoughts, loves, wills, and actions must begin in the throne room of the Almighty. If they do not, then we admit that there is "neutrality", there is a brute fact that exists without being contingent upon God. I have loved dead relatives because of "who they were", and not because of who God is. Perhaps that is why they are here no longer, I think God would not have another in His place. I have loved my friends, my sister, mother, father, all with too much autonomy. Have you? O Brother, O Sister, let us draw nigh unto God. Let us look upon the world with the glasses of Theism, no more to filter the world through the vain lenses of Humanist pride.

We shall never love one another more, till we love Christ more. You can talk about the "Eucharist" till you are blue in the face. You can try to make all people think they are "elect" just because they were sprinkled as an infant, but to no good end. Away with such vanity! Away with all such heresy! I would say, my friends, that I would love you more... Yet, I think the only way to do so is to think more of Christ, and then, only then, shall the second things become elevated. Perhaps, one might think of this as "Presuppositional Life"...yeah.

Reflections on a Hymn

2008-03-25T16:59:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

I have been reading through Roland Bainton's biography of Luther: Here I Stand. I love the story of Luther, for he is one of the more "earthly" of the reformers of the Church. Calvin stands as a figure of tremendous intellect and a systematizer of Christian Truth. Spurgeon was given a gift of verbal eloquence that would rival Chrysostom. But Luther, Luther was just a man of the common people. Sure enough he was a man of letters, but at his heart Luther was a common man who was not afraid to speak in the crude manner of a common German peasant. This ability would be used of God to start a great revival, but his mouth often got him into more trouble than was necessary. He was just an ordinary man used by God to deliver an extraordinary message, not only to the people of his day, but to all of western society that would come after him: God has reconciled man to Himself in the cross of Christ.
The Lord spoke through Luther's pulpit sermons, Christ also gave Luther the gift of Music. He wrote numerous hymns and set the psalms to tunes that were quite lively. He was also known for having a good tenor voice. Here is an example of his hymn writing:

In devil's dungeon chained I lay
The pangs of death swept o'er me.
My sin devoured me night or day
In which my mother bore me.
My anguish grew more rife,
I took no pleasure in my life
And sin had made me crazy.

Then was the Father troubled sore
To see me ever languish.
The Everlasting Pity swore
To save me from my anguish.
He turned to me His Father's heart
And chose Himself a bitter part,
His Dearest did it cost Him.

Thus spoke the Son, "Hold thou to me,
From now on thou wilt make it.
I gave my very life for thee
And for thee I will stake it.
For I am thine and thou art mine,
And where I am our lives entwine,
The Old Fiend cannot shake it."

It is an amazing thing really, when form and content meet. Much like a meal that is well balanced: a large portion of meat to nourish the stomach, and a portion of Dark Chocolate to ensure the taste buds will dance with glee.
I enjoy Luther's reflection on a life in sin as ripping all pleasure from life and making one crazy. Verily, I think the end of one's life, if it be not centered on Christ, is doomed to hysteria. Over the time of my rather short life I have pondered many thoughts about Christ, but never has my apperception considered Christ the "Everlasting Pity". And it truly is a glorious thought to entertain: that Christ and our "lives entwine." As Luther would say:

"This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon his fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness. He who see God as angry does not see him rightly but looks only on a curtain, as if a dark cloud had been drawn across his face."

Eternal Father, Strong To Save

2008-03-16T23:06:00.000-07:00

Greetings all,

I am writing this post at what, if my eyes do not deceive me, looks to be two in the morning due to some studying that I needed to finish. I haven't posted in a while and that was because I did not feel like doing it, and I use the term "feel" for a very good reason. This year has been a hard one for me in a number of different ways that I will not go into. Now, these things and situations that I am referring to have not in any way changed my theology or philosophy. Despite death or flooding or termite infestation, Jesus is still fully God and fully Man, one person with two natures that are neither adulterated nor lessened, is still co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father. However, you can still believe the truth and feel the lie. It is so easy for is to look at our situations and become indifferent to things; to lose our zeal for truth just because we do not feel like we are going anywhere. However, as in all situations, Scripture is not silent about such issues. In the Gospels, we read of torments and afflictions that were laid on Christ that He might attain our pardon, and I imagine that such events were not fun. Life was not a field of beautiful wild growing tulips at that point, it was hell. Yet, Christ still loved. He still cared. He still had compassion and mercy. Things which, though we associate them with emotions that often go with them, are not themselves emotions. So, the state of our feelings is an irrelevant factor if we miss the truth for lack of feeling. Don't get me wrong, its perfectly fine to have feelings in general, but thats not what I am addressing. Our praise and adoration can not be based on how we feel about or lives at the moment, rather it must be based on the truth and love of God. Only that shall give us a place to stand amidst various winds and tempests of life.
My pastor would always try to impress upon me the fact that life is hard and going to be difficult at certain part, and I have found to be true day by day. But I have also found Christ to be sufficient in all situations and at all times regardless of what particular events happen to us. We need only know that He is ever present, and we shall stand strong. We need only know of His power to realize that we are safe within His arms. Yes, life is difficult, but Christ is more powerful than life. And yes, how we feel can be a great hill to over come some days, but God is still greater than our feelings. Feelings come and go, Christ is the I AM: unceasingly self sufficient and unceasingly our Mighty Fortress. Our Eternal Father, Strong to Save.

Stuff Happens

2008-02-05T20:34:00.000-08:00

Greetings all,

This is the first post in...well... quite some time, long over due in fact. I was going to post a most awesome quote by Martin Luther on the proper interpretation of Justification and imputation, but I decided to delay that till tomorrow or the next day because something else has come up....

Actually it is not just one thing, it is many things; and this Sunday/Monday they all came to a head. I do not even know if I could put my feelings into words, for the situations(s) are far to complicated to explain in only one post. I felt far removed from my Father, like I was on a cold planet with no air. A land where the sun shines no more and where the ground lays fallow for lack of rain and nourishment; and I sat there in this waste land pondering my existence: wondering what in the world I was doing and where everything was headed. I felt as though I had lost control of everything, which was not true, for to lose control, one must have it first.

Afterwards, I discovered the flaw undergirding my depression: I looked to myself, and not to God. I do not mean that in the vague sense of, "Let go and let God", but I was genuinely not accepting the Lordship of Christ. I was saying in my own heart, "surely the Lord hath willed that this should happen in such a way...": I was predicating my own thought upon God, which is something that Christ does not take to kindly too. Of course I was depressed, I was looking to myself and myself only. I was not primarily looking to God, and trying to do whatever He has given unto me to do. Instead, I was trying to know and do everything, and that did not turn out so well. The Scripture repeats over and over and over that salvation is of the LORD only. There is no other medium; there is no other means to attain peace and stillness. We must hold out until He Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived decides that it is his time to act. So, until His time, stuff may happen. Truth be told, stuff is almost guaranteed to happen. Often the Lord uses fire to prove His instruments; trials keep us prepared to admit our insufficiency. What better way for us to understand the miraculous revelation of YHWH: THE I AM.

I just wish it were not so long till trials were over. I wait for the dawning of the Completed Kingdom of Christ. O, what a day. Till then we must endure all kinds of situations, that we may truly grow and see the glory of God more and more; day by day.

God is Sovereign. If He wasn't, I think we would go insane.

Kneeling During Worship

2007-05-06T14:15:00.000-07:00

Greetings Theo-bloggers and ect.

Today was a most interesting day at my church service. The first Sunday in May is our anniversary and usually this is one of the times throughout the year that we partake of the Lord's Table. We worshiped, had a reading of the Scripture, partook of the communion, and then had a church meal afterward. (There is no sermon whenever we we celebrate the Lord's Supper.) This was all done in normal fashion today with one exception: the worship was slightly altered. The last song was a praise and worship chorus entitled "We worship and adore You" wherein is contained a line "Bowing down before you". Before the initiation of the song our pastor spoke briefly of the use of kneeling and prostration in Old Testament worship. For myself, I have never been part of any church where the congregation knelt during worship. I know that such practice is permissible in Eastern Orthodox circles with the exception of Sundays and service from Pascha to Pentecost. Also, it was common for Roman Catholics to have kneeling during certain times, particularly during the reception of "Eucharist". For that reason the issue of kneeling during the Reformation was somewhat touchy. Some considered the kneeling during communion to be veneration of the bread and wine which could suggest a form of Roman Catholic transubstantiation. However, in the services lead by John Calvin, Kneeling for the Lord's Supper and prayer was common and Calvin himself advocated the raising of hands during worship. While this was true of Calvin it is not necessarily true of Reformed and Presbyterian circles today. So I thought it to be most interesting when we knelt during the last song of our worship and during a time of prayer. I have both knelt and prostrated before, but not in corporate worship. I enjoyed worship this day and thought it to be a very proper worship position. The primary Hebrew word for Worship שׁחה (shâchâh) actually means to bow or be prostrate, and in the Hebrew culture the knees were symbols of strength; therefore, to kneel is to submit one's self to a stronger party. Of coarse, the important part of worship is the posture of the mind: the inner man must fall before the Lord. Yet, let us not over look the fact that there is perfect validity in external manifestations of inward attitudes. John Gill comments on Psalm 95:6, "O Come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our Maker." by saying that it is natural that the Lord who made man both body and soul should be worshiped with both our body and our soul. One can not say that all worship must be done from a kneeling or prostrate position, but I hope we do it at my church more often in the future.

John Piper is Bad Music Video

2007-03-07T16:26:00.000-08:00

Isolation and loneliness

2007-02-24T22:34:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-21T17:14:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-19T19:29:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-17T22:43:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-15T15:19:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-02-12T19:17:00.000-08:00

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

Escape from the Twilight Zone

2007-01-01T18:54:00.000-08:00

To all of God's precious elect, chosen before the foundations of the world to inherit the Kingdom of his Son.

Greeting:

(Yes, I know that I said the next article would be on the importance of understanding the synonominity of the terms, "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven"; but I have decided to do this post first and then that post. Please bear with me."

I was watching the twilight zone the other day and something came to me much later on. I was watching this episode where a man in the space program was placed in a 5'x5' box to simulate the long journey to the moon and back. This was complete isolation from the out side world: no human contact, no entertainment, nothing. The soldier stayed in this box for almost two whole weeks, and toward the last part of this he went mad. He fell asleep and began to hallucinate that he was in some town where he was the only inhabitant. All the lights and movie theaters were running themselves: the man was completely alone. In the state of complete isolation he went mad running around screaming and shouting. He was trying ever so desperately to find someone to explain why the town was so desolate. The man did not even know his own name, where he was, or what had happened to everyone else. Let me submit to the reader that this could be the state that you are in. I know, at one time in my past, this could be used to describe me. Every man born on earth feels like there is something he is supposed to know or do. "There must be a reason for my existence!", shouts the man who does not walk by faith. Men who do not walk by faith are more like this fictitious character than they might like to admit. They know there is something wrong but they can not produce an answer. They know there is a true world beyond the confined of there 5'x5' box (their mind), but again no answer can be produced. Consider this, if the character I use as an example had not bothered to seek the answers he would have gone on with no problems. He could have eaten, found shelter, and engaged in amusement if he could only avoid the intellectual questions of: where am I, who am I, where is everyone? And so it is for men without Christ; oh yes, you can go on quite happily and never have any problem so long as you deny your mind. So long as you deny the very nature of your existence you will be sound as a pound. But my friend, you will loose your sanity if you try to find out anything about life without first acknowledging the God who created you and who created this universe. Let me tell you how by finishing the story of the man, who is at this point hallucinating. The only way out of the box was to press a small button that was located on the wall of the box. The button was a signal to the scientist monitoring the experiment that meant "I have had enough, I can go no further, get me out!". And the story ends with the scientist releasing him and his sanity restored. The only way an unbelievers can escape his insanity, his misery and damning existence, is to press the button, and this button is Faith in Christ Jesus. Sure, you may think that by your good works you can merit the merit of Christ. Perhaps, you ponder, you by your own free will and power can escape the doom and misery that awaits you, but you cant. You must signal your helplessness and surround your pride. You must admit that you, by your own free will and strength, cannot will God's favor. You must confess your fallen state and admit that you have been dead and unable to do any good. You must come before your creator and admit that you have nothing to ransom yourself. You must strech for the empty hands of faith and plead, " Oh Christ, I have nothing to bring to you except my rags and filth. Fill my, I pray thee, with they own merit and honor. I submit to your Lordship." After a while has passed, you will realize that even this surrender and faith you express is not your own. It is the gift of God and has been wrought in you by the free sovereign purpose of God. Then you will have escaped the Twilight Zone.....

Sola Fide,
The Reformer

On Modern Culture

2006-12-27T14:16:00.000-08:00

Greetings in the Name of our most sovereign and magnificint Christ:
May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all who, though you dwell on this terrestrial ball, groan and labor for Kingdom of our Heavenly Father who is blessed forver Amen.

I had a most odd experience the other day as I was standing in line at Victoria's Secret about two days before the Pagan festival of Christmas. I was in the store to by lotion for my mother,( she really likes a particular brand of vanilla lotion that only they sell) and I was waiting in a most extraordinarily long line. There was a group of people behind me that, I believe, were of teen-age years and were a mixture of both sexes. Their conversation, which was rather loud and one could not help but hear, was so trivial and vain that I thought I was standing in a 1980's Baywatch Convention. All of this vainity and frivolity provoked me to thing about a CNN special on how supermodel photoshoots take place. I looked at several of the displays and advertasments (I was not in the lingere section and hence the photos were not to seductive) and struck by the fact that not one of the women in the advertisment were what could be considered "Normal". By that I mean that the women were all in quite an extraordinary high level of make up and all looked like they had not eaten in about three days. Let me comment on this by saying the CNN special on modeling showed that, in order to produce the "super model" effect, it took several hours of make up and then the pictures were all "touched up" by computer modificatiaton. The end result is that the model really looks diffrent in the picture than she would in real life. At this point you might be wondering, "why is the reformer going on about all this girly stuff?" I say all this to point out that our culture has a skewed view of reailty. In stead of honoring the inner beautify of a woman, we have to improve the exterior. Instead of being proud of the man who works a double shift at a crap job to support his family, we honor the Donald Trumps and Hugh Heifners of the world as models of excelence. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate make-up(though I prefer women who don't use a lot of it), /i don't mind rich men(except when they shirk their God given respocibilities that comes with power). my point is that as Christians we must guard against having out tastes assimilated by the hedonistic and etxernalistic culture that is bent on gaining a monolithic secular society. Let us rather esteem and admire the beauty of the internal spirit that longs for God's Holliness. Let us use our money and presitge to further the Gospel and bear the burdens of our fellow citizens of the Kingdom of Christ.
Sola Fide,
The Reformer
(P.S. The next post will be on the importance of realizing the synonomous terms of the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the "Kingdom of God")

New World Order

2006-12-19T10:15:00.000-08:00

I have been doing a lot of thinking about eschatology and the "One World Government". (I am not a Dispensationalist, and I do not believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture.) So, in looking through YouTube I found someone named the "Owl Man" who is all about exposing the anti-Chrstian cossacs in the Government. This shall be one of many new posts with videos that he and other like minded people have made. Enjoy the Schaefferian appraisment:

Limited Atonement and Evangelism

2006-12-10T19:36:00.000-08:00

"I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things form the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one who the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:25-28)
Oh, that our pastor of this day and age would preach like this. There was once a time where such words were not uncomomn in Protestant churches, but now to make a claim like this is too call into question the goodness of God. Yet, are these not the words of our Lord? The quotation says, " You have hidden these things...for so it seemed good in Your sight." Surely Christ knew of His Father's actions and is quite able to speak of them clearly. The Gospel has the power to save the whole world, but it is intended for only the elect. The one whom the Father has not chosen will not will not come. So, logically Christ went on to give a list of who would come and speak only to them...no there is no logic in that at all. For Christ has clearly said, "Come to me, all you..." Christ left the command that we preach the Gospel to all men, whether we think they are reprobate or not. The question is not, "What is the Lord's most secret plan that He has not revealed"; but, "What has the Lord already commanded in His written word." Yes, some will come and the rest will not, but who are they who will come. In stead of trying to determine which of our audince is the elect and which is not, we should do as our Lord and speak to them all. The Bible clearly speaks of a definite atonement, but it equally commands the open proclaimation of the Word to all men. Oh, that this generation would proclaim the Gospel as Christ did!
Sola Gratia,
ReformationMan

Wine instead of Champaign; Bread instead of iced cake

2006-12-05T17:40:00.000-08:00

Greetings fellow friends and theologians:

I know it has been a long time since I have blogged, and I truly doubt that anyone still reads this, but I shall press on anyway. The title might sound a little strange and that, I grant it, might be very true. I was studying for a paper on the ramifications of failure when I came across an article that struck me quite hard. The author thought it to be quite strange that as a society so much time is spent into making a wedding absolutely perfect. If we were to draw all conclusions about married life from the wedding ceremony, all marriage would be is one long romantic honeymoon with flowers and Champaign all over the place. However, the author thought this to be no nearer the truth than Bill Clinton is to the term “chastity”. Instead the author observed that, usually within twenty-four hours, there will be. “At least one good fight, and some really bad sex.” Now not all couple will experience both of these on the first day of their marriage, but I began to think of how this would be true for my own life. For a moment I will assume( and yes, I know what that means) that I will be married one day. (again, those of you who know me might be saying this assumption is a little to much, but bear with me here) Now I thought to my self that since my wife and I will not have had sex before the first time we have sex, the first time will probably not be that good. And as for the fight, anyone who is around me for more than 24 hours will get into an argument with me. So, how shall we now live? Should the entire marriage ceremony be destroyed? No, it should be reformed. Instead of Champaign and cake, why not Communion? Instead of the wedding feast, why not have a reminder that the only way two people can live together is throught the blood and flesh of Christ. Lest us do the following:1) forget the ornamental crap, have the wedding in a private house with close friends and family. 2) realize that married life is a gift from God, but man it can be hell on earth when two sinners live together till death do us part. 3) Remember that by Christ alone can the marriage work.
So, in conclusion I think this is what I want to do with my marriage. I don’t know how the future Mrs. Cook will respond to these Ideas, but my guess is that I probably wont marry a woman who demands an ornate ceremony any ways and that’s a ways off still. What will you do?

Sola Deo Gloria
Reformation Man

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

2006-07-16T20:34:00.000-07:00

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee"
Psalm 122:6

Yes O saints, lift up thy voice and cry out for Zion. He daughters have been defiled and the infidels have invaded our land. Our church is over run with evil men who try to decive the elect, and only wish to steal and destroy our Hope. Indeed, men try to seduce the bretheren to go after false doctrines of vain humanistic prosperity. But lo, God shall not leave His children to be smitten by the wolves. The Lord GOD has always risen up to te challenge in every generation to stop the gain slaying of arrogant knaves. Pray, O entreat the Lord that his Church,, His Israel, His elect might have peace.
Sola Deo Gloria
TheReformer

(P. S. Christianity and Hyper-Christianity Part II is comming soon)

Christianity and Hyper Christianity (Part I)

2006-07-02T01:36:00.000-07:00

Greetings me fellow theologians;

For the past several weeks I have been reading articles from Southern Baptist circles on "Hyper Calvinism", and to tell you the truth I am sick and tired of all the crap that gets to pass for honest scholarly essays. I honestly can not help but ask myself after I read some of these articles, "Where in the world did this asinine jacka-nape get his T.H.D. from?" It seems as if some of these professional theologians can not even use a term properly, nor can they read the plain black and white pages that are in every historical theology text book. Dr. Caner of Liberty University is a chief example of this foolishness. He wrote an article in the Liberty newspaper entitled, "Predestined not to be a Hyper-Calvinist." In this article he uses two terms to describe the modern day Calvinist movement in Southern Baptist circles as, "Hyper-Calvinist" and "Neo-Calvinist". Perhaps it is slightly un-orthodox but I shall start with the latter term and then the former. A great example of a "Neo-Calvinist" would be Francis Schaeffer. The term applies to a movement started principally in the Dutch church in the 19th century that tried to be "Reformational" instead of "Reformed". What that means is that Neo-Calvinist are trying to take the principles of Scripture and apply them to every area of their life. Christ is Lord over all of life. Though I do not agree with Schaeffer when it comes to Christians being active in political circles, I do agree with many of the philosophical principles about the Bible affecting all points of the believers life that he espouses.( I really do not see how Calvinist and Neo-Calvinism differ philosophical speaking. In practice Calvinist are not very politically active unlike Neo-Calvinist, but that is practice not belief.) When Caner uses this term he completely changes the meaning. He defines a Neo-Calvinist as "A Hyper Calvinist with a twist. He cannot discuss anything without referencing Calvinism. For the "Neo-Calvinist," you are either Reformed, or you are teaching heresy. It is the prism through which every doctrine is filtered." Now, the reference that these Neo-Calvinsts filter all doctrines through the Calvinist system could be some very, and I repeat, very vague reference to the actual meaning of the term. However, I must say that it is both wrong and slanderous to equate Neo-Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. They are two separate ideologies all together. Perhaps I am being to hard on Dr. Caner, and maybe he will accurately define Hyper-Calvinism and salvage some of his theological dignity. Not quite the case. He defines Hyper-Calvinism as: 1. Double Predestination,2.Not all babies who die go to heaven., 3.GodÂs "love for mankind" must be redefined; 4. Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God; 5.Calvinism is the only Gospel.
This definition of Hyper-Calvinism is hardly what I would expect from thepresentt of a Seminary.Hyper-Calvinsim is when someone takes the points of Calvinsim andpervertss them into some very unbiblical doctrine i.e. because God is sovereign their is no need for evangelism. The first point of double predestination is not unique to Hyper-Calvinsim, it is a part of any form of Calvinsim. Point two is some what of anenigmaticc statement. The full text of point two is: " They do not say outright that "non-elect babies who die go to hell." They simply say that they leave such issues to the sovereignty of God. This raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesnÂt it? Thankfully, most theologians through the centuries have denied this teaching." Hm... that is a contradiction. First Caner accuses thessooe called Hyper-Calvinists of saying the not all babies go to heaven, and then he says that they do not out right say it but just leave to up to God. If these so called Hyper-Calvinist say not all babies go to heaven, why then would they say that they do not know and that they will leave that question up to the sovereignty of God? Oh foolish Caner, they can not possibly say both ideas for they contradict one another. I, and I am no Hyper-Calvinist, believe that God is not required to send all babies who die to heaven on the grounds that upon the moment of their conception they become fully human individuals. As such they are slod under sin and are liable to thjudgmentnt of God. Yet, the Scripture does not plainly say where they go. I must therefore declare that I do not know, but shall leave that decision to the wisdom and mercy of God. Point three is once again an improper description of HypeCalvinismsm. personallyly do not believe that God loves everyone. I do believe that He loves people out of every tribtonguege and nation (For God so loved the World). I also believe that several verses state that God has a general benevolence, and does not take improper pleasure in the death of a sinner like the proverbial spectator in thecoliseumum. (To be continued...)

Once Again

2006-06-10T20:21:00.001-07:00

Greetings:

Well, I have returned again me theologian friends (If anyone still reads this blog. I seriously Doubt it, in fact I think I am talking to myself alone right now...Oh well, such is the story of my life). I have returned to the blogging world, after a temporary internet connection problem, with a renew vitality. So here is the Tower Experience of Martin Luther:

Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul's Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: "The justice of God is revealed in it." I hated that word, "justice of God," which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.
But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn't be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, "Isn't it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?" This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.
I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'" I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith." All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.
I exalted this sweetest word of mine, "the justice of God," with as much love as before I had hated it with hate. This phrase of Paul was for me the very gate of paradise. Afterward I read Augustine's "On the Spirit and the Letter," in which I found what I had not dared hope for. I discovered that he too interpreted "the justice of God" in a similar way, namely, as that with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although Augustine had said it imperfectly and did not explain in detail how God imputes justice to us, still it pleased me that he taught the justice of God by which we are justified."

I thought of this because I was reading a friends blog (ignescent, a very good blog That I would personally give my Biblically Reformed Blog seal of approval) and human inability was mentioned in connection with grief. Luther said he hated God's law and justice, because God required what Luther could not produce. The sweet part of it is, God has provided HIS Faith for His elect, His Children. We all, and I mean all, hate God, but we are transformed by His saving Grace, to love that which we formerly hated.

Sola Deo Gloria,
The Reformer

talk about "Holy War"

2006-04-23T17:14:00.000-07:00

Greeting:

I will have to admit this video has no theological view what so ever. However it is quite hilarious. The setting is that on a small island in Greece, two churches have had a bottle rock war on Eater ever year for centuries. The church that hits the other church's bell tower wins. An estimated 70,000 rockets were used in this years contest.

I shall not be moved

2006-04-04T08:10:00.000-07:00

"I can not submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.(Martin Luther, Diet of Worms)

But let all those rejoice who put their trust in You;Let them ever shout for joy, because You defend them; Let those also who love Your name Be joyful in You.
Psalm 5:11

Those who trust in the LORD Are like Mount Zion, Which cannot be moved, but abides forever. As the mountains surround Jerusalem, So the LORD surrounds His peopleFrom this time forth and forever. Psalms 125:1-2

Let those be put to shame and brought to dishonor Who seek after my life; Let those be turned back and brought to confusion Who plot my hurt. Let them be like chaff before the wind, And let the angel[a] of the LORD chase them. Let their way be dark and slippery, And let the angel of the LORD pursue them. For without cause they have hidden their net for me in a pit, Which they have dug without cause for my life. Let destruction come upon him unexpectedly, And let his net that he has hidden catch himself; Into that very destruction let him fall. Psalm 35:4-8

Those who have the foundation of the Word of the Lord shall not be moved. Quite to the contrary, it is our enemies that are moved. The Lord is our warrior, He will fight for us. Fear not, O sons of Truth. We need not fight, for we have already one.

Fighting for Truth,
The Reformer

thought for the day

2006-03-31T08:15:00.000-08:00

"I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth."(Martin Luther)

In Christ,
The Reformer

contentless content. Part I

2006-03-29T07:31:00.000-08:00

Greetings:

"I have come to the point where, when I hear the word Jesus-Which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and His work-I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word Jesus than most any other word in the modern word. The word is used as a contenless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, Scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from those which Jesus taught. Men are called to follow the word with highly motivated feverency, and nowhere more than in the new morality which follows the radical theology. It is now Jesus-like to sleep with a girl or a man, if she or he needs you. As long as you are trying to be human, you are being Jesus-like to sleep with the other person- at the cost, be it noted, of breaking the specific morality that Jesus taught. But to these people this does not matter, because that is the downstairs in the area of rational Scriptural content.
(Schaeffer, Francis. "Escape from Reason", page 259.)

Now, this is already enough to read, therefore I shall speak on this tomorrow.

By Faith Alone,
TheReformer

True Fear

2006-03-23T07:36:00.000-08:00

"I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self." (Martin Luther)

How True, how true this is. What more can I say?

Faith Alone,
The Reformer

Strength in the Oricals of God

2006-03-22T07:40:00.000-08:00

Greetings:

"Let them read our commandments in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, or Epistles; let them pursue the large number of precepts against avarice and luxury which are everywhere read to the congregations that meet for this purpose, and which strike the ear, not with the uncertain sound of philosophical discussion, but with the thunder of God's own oracle pealing from the clouds."(Augustine. The City of God, Book II; part .19)

Now you might be asking yourself, "What is up with this". My reply is simple, speak the Truth loud and proud. Don't fear Truth, or rather what the Truth may bring. I confess that I have had troubles lately over the Truth. Not large problems, no one has tried to kill me or anything like that, but people have died for the Truth. Surley if saints would die for the Truth, the least I could do is stand up for Truth. What I obtained from this passage was to my soul as sweet as honey and as nuroushing as bread. The Word is in itself bold, and does not compromise. It simply draws a clear line, and leaves no room for debate. Thats how I wish to be. I want to be able to say this is Truth, and this is not and there is no middle ground. No compromising, no faltering, and no stepping down. The oracles of God thunder from heaven, and so should those that speak His Word. Let the humanist be weak and feabaly undecided, But let those who trust in Truth be as the Truth itself is.
"O Lord, grant this I pray. Let your holy church stand up for right, abhor evil, and endure all things for Your name sake. Take not the trial away for we know trials only strengthen us, but only give thy Word and Peace and Strength to endure. Sanctify us to Your Word, for it is the Truth. Amen.

In love and reverant care for truth,
The Reformer

a thought for.....

2006-03-19T16:33:00.000-08:00

Greetings:

Well, here is an old hymn that I love. I had never even heard of it till a friend of mine introduced it to our school in chapel one day. I must say that is a terrible shame, I wish I could have heard this years ago. So take this and think on it for O..... 40 or 50 years:

How deep the Father's love for us,How vast beyond all measureThat He should give His only SonTo make a wretch His treasure

How great the pain of searing loss,The Father turns His face awayAs wounds which mar the chosen One,Bring many sons to glory

Behold the Man upon a cross,My sin upon His shouldersAshamed I hear my mocing voice,Call out among the scoffers

It was my sin that helf Him thereUntil it was accomplishedHis dying breath has brought me lifeI know that it is finished

I will not boast in anythingNo gifts, no power, no wisdomBut I will boast inJesus ChristHis death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward?I cannot give an answerBut this I know with all my heartHis wounds have paid my ransom(REPEAT)

By Christ Alone,
The Reformer

Christ alone

2006-03-07T07:56:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

I was praying this week and suddenly something happened... My prayer was answered in being unaswered. I prayed something like this:

"Surely, O Lord, You have prepared a wife for me. It is unconcevable that I should be left alone in this world. With trials and tribulations everywhere, and not to mention this horrible tyrany of celabacy, surely You would not make me face this alone in this life. I need someone to talk to after I come home. I need someone to love, and to be loved by. Someone that I may serve and honor. Someone to help in times of need and distress, someone who can understand me and..."

It was here that I stopped. I could go no futher for I felt to do so would be utter foolishness. Why should I look for fullfilment in this present life of these things whe they are already fullfilled. When I am alone, I am truly not for there with me is Christ. When I come home, I have Christ that I may speak with. It is Christ that I must love, and Him that I must serve. Who could better understand me than the one who created me? I speak of this personal experiance of mine to hopefully get you to look at yourself. Whatever need you have, it is meat in Christ. He alone can fullfill all the longings of your heart. Your mind will only find rest in His Word. Lean upon Him, O you who Love the Lord. Find in Christ, thine all in all. Amen

Sola Christus,
Reformer

Reason as a Whore

2006-03-07T07:42:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

I feel that we have established firmly that reason is to be used in the service of God. It is from proper faith that true logical and coherant structure come. When we use reason and the intelect outside of the Christian faith, then we do so improperly. What good is it to study science if the God of the Bible is not in the process? Firstly, there is no reason to study science without God. If you believe in the view of random creation via evolution, then why should there be any order in the universe. There should be no such thing as logic, chance would be the only constant. The galaxy, let alone the universe, should be nothing more than jumbled atoms and particles scattered over vaste amounts of space. Yet this is not true by any means. The entire universe, as much of it as we have observed, works in a logical and coherant manner. What if you believed in the pagan dieties of Rome and Greece? Their "Gods" are no more than glorified men. They are humanity that has been given superhuman attributes. For example, the gods are constantly having affairs with human women, and are by all means finite. We have an example of this in the statue of the "hero" (heros of Greek mythology are considered amoung the gods) Hercules urinating while being inebriated. How could such flippant passable gods create and maintain order in society? they can't. The impersonaly dieties of the Eastern Mysiticism and Chinease cultures give us no hope either. When we use reason, appart from the Word of God, we end up wiht the horrible attrocities that we have today:Nihilism, Post-Modernism, and hedonism. We need the Bible in order to function, without it we shall perish.

Sola Scriptura,
Reformer

Reason as a Bride

2006-02-28T07:48:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

(I know that this might not appear to be connected with Grace, but rest assured that there is some method to my madness.)

Anyway... The last post stated that reason could be a bride or a whore. Today I shall persue how reason can be a bride to the Christian Faith. Now, that is obviously a metaphorical and poetic statement. I mean, when I say that reason is a brdie to the Christian Faith, that reason can be used in a proper way that brings about good results. When a woman and a man choose to marry (and therefore share a conjugal relationship) children are produced and a family is created.(Generally speaking) This is exactly how it is when reason combines with the Christian Faith. For God Himself is the "God of knowledge" (I Samuel 2:3). The Lord numerous times calls for His people to search out for wisdon in the Proverbs. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7) God declares that only fools hate wisdom and instruction, but notice where knowledge begins. True knowledge can only begin when the fear of the is its basis. Today we live in an ear coming to be known as post-modernism (or a period of ultra-modernsim, thats all semantics tho) Post-Modernist revolt against the idea of theories and anything that can give a concrete definition of life, morals, and even the most basic things of life. We, as believers in Christ, start from the Infinite reference point who is God Himself as desiplayed in both Old and New Testments. There will be a little more on this that I shall conclude on tomorow.

By His Word Alone,
Reformer

Reason as a whore, and a bride

2006-02-24T07:55:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

Now what do I mean by this title, because I am sure that is what you are asking yourself. For some background info to this question I have been self studying philosophy for some time now. I have read from Empirical Aristotle to Existential Satre. Also "Christan" philosophers like Anselm and Aquinas. Throught all of this the question in my mind has come to, "What is the role of reason in the Christian Faith." Luther called reason a whore, but he sure did use it a lot. Luther, Calvin (and myself) would not call reason or logic a whore in and of itself. I have come to this conclusion:

"When reason is based upon faith(In God's Revelation a.k.a. the Bible, and the finished vicarious work of Christ) reason becomes like a bride. "
"When reason is based on secular Ideas(humansim i.e. Existenalsim, Post Modernsim and the like), reason becomes nothing more than a godless whore."

When reason and saving faith meet, it is like a husband and a bride. Comming together, conjugal bliss forms good and wholesome offspring. But when reason unites with humanism, it is gross immorality. The bed is defiled and disease with hellashious torment is the only thing that is produced. This is...as it were... for your thought. I will give more thought on this tomorow.

By Christ Alone,
Reformer

for sinners

2006-02-22T17:40:00.000-08:00

Woe to us, oh woe to us.
For we sin against the Lord our God.
How shall we come before our sovereign,
Can sinful man approach the throne of God.
Is it lawful for a God to provide salvation for the reprobate?

Nay, there is not justice in what was done to Christ for His chruch.
It is only because He loved... He Loved? How can this be?
I can answer it not, for I tremble before this thought.
I am prostrate before the throne, and for love and the sake of awe I dare not look up.
I am commanded by my concious to wet the ground with my tears and pray the wrath not consume me.
Yet, my Savior lifts up my head and looks me in the eye. I see not hate in his eyes, only love that a Father has for his child. Why is this? My eyes were once full of hate, yet his full of love from before time began...

All I can do is shout of his amazing love. Men are not suppose to cry, yet I say damn such idea to hell. For a God that would justfiy me in such a manner I must pore contempt on all pride and pore myself out as water. I have nothing in my hands to bring, but still to thy cross I can cling.
Amazing Grace.

I emplore you my reader, seek the Lord, and lean not upon thy own understanding. Look to the sky for your salvation. You shall find no help inside yourself, nor inside other men. Only by looking up, above yourself and all other men, can you find peace. For peace proccedeth from Truth, and Truth hath only one source and that is from the Word of God, who is Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen

for the ladies

2006-02-20T18:00:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

You know people really think that I am all about theology and nothing eles. I can't help that, I was predestined to be this way(cuckle, cuckle. a lame Calvanist joke) Anywho, I was watching the branaugh Version of Shakespear's "Much Ado About Nothing" and some lines hit me as being good for the upcoming valenties day.(Ok, mabey I missed the day, by a week or two, but it is a Catholic Pagan holiday and I was hesitent to say anything about it at all. Or I just plain forgot...)And so here are the lines as best I can remeber them:

"Sigh no more ladies, sigh no more;
Men were decievers ever.
One foot in sea, and one on shore;
To one thing Constant never.
So sigh not so, but let them go;
and be you blithe and bonny.
Converting all your sounds of woe,
into, 'hey, nony, nony'"

I dont think I would agree with this. True men, as described and commandd in Scripture, seem nothing like this. Men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church...well, that entailed:setting aside glory, becoming a servant, loving when no love was given, being hated and spat upon and ect. So I must conclude that any "man" who dissagrees with Scripture and is content to treat women harshly is a knaveish ill-breading crutch (keeping with the shakespeanrean theme), and can be damned to eternal fire and torment for all I care. But amid this ranting I have one question.... What does nonny nonny mean????

By Christ Alone,
Reformer

On to the next topic

2006-02-06T07:49:00.001-08:00

Greetings,

The topic we have been thus far considering is the first point of the Reformation, "Sola Scriptura". This section having been concluded we are moving on to "Sola Gratia" (Grace alone). There are, as before mentioned, five statments and they could be discussed in any order, but this is just the next point we are moving on to.

A side note is on the last post. This is an adaptation from a statement Martin Luther made when he thought he was dying (from kidney stones, or urinary stones, I dont know if there is a diffrence, I am not doctor). Just an interesting little historical tid-bit.

In Christ Alone,
TheReformer

A Simple Prayer

2006-01-31T07:38:00.000-08:00

A Simple Prayer I leave for you today. "Lord, fill the hearts of your people with love for Your Word. Thy Word Alone is the Truth. Fill us with thy Truth, and with hatred for the Pope." Amen

Luther and Calvin

2006-01-27T08:06:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

THis is once again something from the Trinity foundation. This is not intended for you to read the entire thing. You may print it or save it to your computer. This is about how the Reformers viewed the Bible.:

Luther and Calvin on the Authority of the Bible
John W. Robbins
All acquainted with the sixteenth century Reformation know that the watchword was Sola Scriptura—"Scripture alone." This assertion was made against the pope, the church "fathers," and church councils. Luther and Calvin’s "Scripture alone" meant at least four things:
the necessity of Scripture;
the authority of Scripture;
the sufficiency of Scripture; and
the perspicuity of Scripture.

The Necessity of Scripture
Negatively, Scripture is necessary because, first, man is a creature, and second, man is a sinner. The blindness and darkness of the human heart, the hold that Satan has over his miserable subjects, and the inability of men to desire truth on their own part make an objective revelation most necessary. Scripture is necessary for the preservation of God’s Word for mankind in an objective and self-attesting form. Luther said that among God’s people the rule is not to be a smart aleck or a know-it-all, "but to hear, believe and persevere in the Word of God, through which alone we obtain whatever knowledge we have of God and divine things. We are not to determine out of ourselves what we must believe about him, but to hear and learn it from him."
The Bible is a necessity. Sola Scriptura must be seen as both a denial and an affirmation. It is a denial of man’s ability to know God as he ought apart from Scripture, and it affirms that the Bible is the only place where definite knowledge of God is to be discovered. Man is wholly bankrupt of that knowledge which is able to save him. If he is desirous of salvation, he must turn to the written Word of Scripture.
Calvin takes great pains to stress that under both the old and new dispensation God committed his Word to writing in order to ensure a correct knowledge of himself apart from any priestly interpretation. When the Reformer speaks of the apostles being authorized to teach what Christ commanded, he says: "Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God and given place as such in the Church than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, then in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word." Calvin makes it clear that Christ limited the mission of the apostles "when he ordered them to go and teach not what they had thoughtlessly fabricated, but all that he had commanded them." Without the Bible we have no revelation from God which is able to save us from sin and death. Sola Scriptura means the necessity of Scripture.
The Authority of Scripture
The authority of the Bible is implicit in its necessity. The Scriptures are necessary because an authoritative self-revelation of God is necessary for men. However, we need to distinguish between authority and necessity. Martin Luther’s contemporaries admitted the necessity of the Bible, but it was his insistence upon its authority which brought them into serious conflict with the Reformer. Luther’s sola Scriptura was revolutionary because it attributed to the Bible absolute authority—over pope, "fathers," and councils. The offensive concept was sola Scriptura—Scripture alone. Luther was not content with belief in the relative necessity of Scripture. For him the Bible was the only authority:
In the empire of the church the ruler is God’s Word.
We must judge according to the Word of God.
We must judge and consider all wonders and miracles in the light of God’s Word, to ascertain whether they are in accordance and agreement with it.
Whether in opposition to Rome or the enthusiasts, Luther never tired of asserting Scripture alone.
Likewise, Calvin would not tolerate the subjection of the Word to human authorities. The mark of the church—indeed the sine qua non of the true church—was the rule of the Word. Calvin declares: "Since the church is Christ’s Kingdom, and he reigns by his Word alone, will it not be clear to any man that those are lying words by which the Kingdom of Christ is imagined to exist apart from his sceptre (that is, his most holy Word)?"
Both Reformers were all too aware that sinful man seeks to be autonomous. He seeks to set himself up as a judge over that which presents itself to him as revelation. The Word of God does not come to man in such a way as to recognize his self-claimed autonomy. Rather, it comes challenging his authority and overthrowing his conceited attempt to have the final word. Calvin saw as blasphemous impiety the attempt to maintain the precedence and priority of the church over the Word. As Paul declares, the church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets. We must not speak as though the mother owed her birth to the daughter. Calvin understood that to reject the rule of the Word was to reject the very rule of Christ himself.
Modern views on authority do not echo the sentiments of Luther and Calvin. Yet interestingly enough, many of these views are anticipated in the defense of truth made by these two sons of Paul. As previously stated, some today wish to speak of Christ being the final authority while they reject the authority of the Word. However, Calvin sees the authoritative reign of Christ in and through, not apart from, the Word. So also with those who would claim direct governance by the Spirit. Governance by the Spirit without or instead of the Word would be too vague and unstable. Christ has joined the Spirit to the Word to avoid such a vague, unstable government. Word and Spirit belong together—inseparably together.
Those who wish to propound a multiple source concept of authority would do well to hearken to the sola of Luther. He, like Calvin, repudiated the notion that the Scriptures are created by the church and not vice versa:
The Church is built on the word of the Gospel which is the Word of God’s wisdom and virtue.
The Word of God preserves the Church of God.
Indeed, the church owes her existence to the Word and is maintained by the same means. Nor would Luther be patient with the argument by the sophists, who deduced the superiority of the church over the Word because of the supposed creation of the canon by the church. The inimitable response of Luther cannot go unquoted:
What a splendid argument! I approve Scripture. Therefore I am superior to Scripture. John the Baptist acknowledges and confesses Christ. He points to him with his finger. Therefore he is superior to Christ. The church approves Christian faith and doctrine. Therefore the church is superior to them.
Surely no more needs to be added. For Luther and Calvin, sola Scriptura meant the absolute authority of the Bible. Their position is but the reflection of Paul’s and ought, therefore, to be ours.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
We come now to the sufficiency of Scripture. Once again, this attribute is involved inextricably with the previous two. The notions of man are not partly but wholly bankrupt. There is need for no additional ideas from man to supplement the divine revelation. The necessity of the Bible has reference to all men; the authority of the Bible has particular reference to the autonomous pretensions of Rome and the fanatics; and the sufficiency of the Word challenged the attempted supplements of the philosophers and Romanists.
Sola Scriptura was the denial of any admixture of the word of man with the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is present in the revelation of the Word. Any teaching that does not agree with Scripture is to be rejected, Luther said, "even if it snows miracles every day." Luther did not despise the creeds of the church, but accepted them simply because they had Biblical content. Fidelity to the Word was the criterion for Luther, not only for the creeds of the church but for the theologians also. Though he, like Calvin, appealed time and again to the early theologians, he would not bow to them when their teachings conflicted with that of Scripture. Declared the Reformer: "I will not listen to the church or the fathers or the apostles unless they bring and teach the pure Word of God." The Scriptures are sufficient. In so far as theologians help us to understand those Scriptures, Luther was happy to appeal to them. However, he never had any notion that Scripture had to be supplemented.
A Council has no power to establish new articles of faith, even though the Holy Spirit is present. Even the apostolic council in Jerusalem introduced nothing new in matters of faith . . ..
A council has the power—and is also duty- bound to exercise it—to suppress and condemn new articles of faith in accordance with Scripture and the ancient faith . . ..
Calvin takes the same position when he speaks as follows:
Furthermore, those who, having forsaken Scripture, imagine some way or other of reaching God, ought to be thought of as not so much gripped by error as carried away by frenzy. For of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great haughtiness, exacting the teaching office of the Holy Spirit, despise all reading and laugh at the simplicity of those who, as they express it, still follow the dead and killing letter.
These fanatics, who appealed to the Spirit instead of the Word, showed contempt for that Word. They denied the all-sufficiency and perfection of the Word. However, the Spirit is recognized in his agreement with Scripture, for the Word and Spirit belong inseparably together.
Today many claim authority for charismatic experiences and others posit authority in some philosophy or psychology other than the Word. It needs to be stated again that the Word is sufficient. It needs no supplementation from popes, theologians, councils, or bureaucracies. It needs no supplementation by enthusiastic fanatics who entertain their own private revelations and visions. It needs no supplementation by scientists, psychologists, or philosophers. The Scripture is sufficient.
The Perspicuity of Scripture
We have considered the necessity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture. Now we come to the perspicuity, or the essential clarity, of the Bible. If necessity is aimed at rationalism, authority at Romanism and fanaticism, and sufficiency at eclecticism, then the perspicuity of the Scriptures is aimed at clericalism and professorialism. Rome confined the Word to ecclesiastical experts. Luther and Calvin broke the chains that held the Bible to the scholars’ bench and gave the Word of God to the humblest peasant. In his comment on Psalm 37, Luther said: "There is not on Earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture; compared with all other books it is as the sun compared with all other lights." Luther accused the papacy of beclouding the inherent radiance of the Word and keeping the people from its unambiguous truth. He objected: "they take from the Scripture its single, simple, and stable meaning; they blind our eyes, so that we stagger about and retain no reliable interpretation. We are like men bewitched or tricked while they play with us as gamblers with their dice."
Erasmus was no better. He erred greatly in Luther’s eyes in asserting that, apart from "the precepts designed to regulate our existence," the Bible is, in many places, obscure and impenetrable. In his Bondage of the Will, Luther complains: "It is with such scarecrows that Satan has frightened away men from reading the Sacred Writings and has rendered the Holy Scriptures contemptible . . .."
It must not be thought that the perspicuity of Scripture is inconsistent with the Protestant emphasis of the diligent exposition of the Word. Notice these pertinent remarks of Calvin:
Since we ought to be satisfied with the Word of God alone, what purpose is served by hearing sermons every day, or even the office of pastors? Has not every person the opportunity of reading the Bible? But Paul assigns to teachers the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread and cutting it in small pieces.
The minister of the Word must strive to be a scholar. Declares Calvin: "None will ever be a good minister of the Word of God, unless he is first of all a scholar." It is as if Calvin were speaking of our day when he says: "how many [ministers] does one see who have only superficially glanced at Holy Scripture and are so pitifully poorly versed in it that with every new idea they change their views." Further, not only must the perspicuity of Scripture not lead us into academic indifference, but it must not lead us to think that, unaided by the Spirit, we can fathom the true intent of God’s Word. Finally, in reference to the perspicuity of Scripture, it must not be thought that the total clarity and comprehensibility of the Word are here being advocated. The perspicuity of Scripture refers to the basic or essential clarity. There are things in the Word that the best of God’s children have not been able to fathom. However, by the gracious ministry of the Spirit, that which is necessary for salvation and godliness is clear.
The Reformers’ Approach to the Bible
Generally speaking, contemporary theology posits supreme authority in some sort of god and gives the Bible only a relative authority. Contemporary theology bluntly refuses to give absolute authority to the Bible, for it claims to fear that to do so is to rob God of his absolute authority. But we have seen that, for Luther and Calvin, sola Scriptura meant nothing less than the absolute authority of the Bible. Both Reformers saw the Scriptures as deserving the attribute of absolute authority—not in the place of God but as the expression of the very mind of God. Hence, Luther and Calvin call the modern church back to the absolute authority of the infallible Bible as the Word of God in the church and the world.
If contemporary theology posits supreme authority in a god to the detriment of the Bible, present day "evangelicalism" posits supreme authority in the experience of the worshiper to the detriment of the Word. Luther and Calvin constantly fought against Rome’s pretensions to direct contact with the Spirit in and through the pope and church councils. Rome admitted that the Spirit spoke in and through the Bible, but claimed this was not the final locus of the Spirit’s working. As pointed out earlier, Luther attacked the right of councils to establish new articles of faith. In addition, Luther and Calvin had to defend the absolute authority of the Bible against the fanatics, who boasted of immediacy of revelation by the Spirit.
Today, the miraculous, the unusual, the pragmatically "helpful" govern the approach of many to the Word so that what they find is only the confirmation of their experiences. The slogan, "The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument," is highly dangerous and anti-Christian. A miracle, a "changed life," may be used as the final "proof" which closes all argument and brings down charges of resisting the Spirit upon those who wish to exercise reserve. But if a position is not in accordance with the Bible, it is wrong—irrespective of experience. Luther insisted that that which does not agree with Scripture is to be rejected "even if it snows miracles every day."
Luther and Calvin challenge both contemporary theology and "evangelicalism" in their practical demonstration of commitment to the authority of Scripture. Witness the truly prodigious labors of these Reformers in expounding the Word in preaching, teaching, and voluminous writings. This provides a stark contrast to most theology and preaching today. The Bible is shamefully neglected in modern theology and preaching. Consider so-called evangelical preaching. One may encounter pseudo-dramatism. He may hear the imperatives pulverizing the people of God. He may listen to sickeningly glib cliches rolling off the preacher’s tongue with the greatest of ease. But where is that careful exegesis of the text? Where is that great concern to represent the message of the passage of Scripture? Ultimately, is not our view of the Word seen more in what we do with it than in what we say about it? Have we not separated the Spirit from the Word in our foolish notion that scholarship on the part of the minister of God is to be subordinated to emotional attachment, which we call "spirituality"? If we really believe that the Word and Spirit are inseparable, would this not be shown in a high quality of exegesis and exposition? The truly scholarly labors of both Luther and Calvin call the quality of all modern ministries into question. The Bible is absolutely necessary, the only authority, completely sufficient, and, under the ministry of the Spirit, essentially clear.
May 1995

Aonther good resource material for you to use. This is rhetoric on the Biblical principal of Sola Scriptora. I would like to say that I do not believe everything the Trinity Foundation say. I do not think that they arte infallable. I am just posting some scholarly essas for the use of other peoples.

Sola Scriptora,
TheReformer

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

2006-01-25T07:50:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

This is a brief interuption of the current study on reformation thought to bring an interesting tib bit of history. I believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, I prefer to call it that and some like to call it "Calvansim". Be that as it may this is an interesting article on Spurgeon and how he view the area of Grace in his theology:

Spurgeon, the Forgotten Calvinist
Godwell Andrew Chan

"Calvinism IS the Gospel, and nothing else."
(C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. I: The Early Years)
"The longer I live, the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection."
(The Forgotten Spurgeon, by Iain Murray)
"Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin."
(C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest)
These three quotations should be sufficient to establish incontrovertibly that Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Unfortunately, there have been many attempts to sweep this fact under the rug. For example, the Kelvedon edition of Spurgeon’s sermons removed all his criticism of Arminianism with no warning to the reader of any abridgement.1 The result of such censorship is that today, while many know Spurgeon to be the "Prince of Preachers," few know that he was a staunch Calvinist. Let us, therefore, hear Spurgeon’s own testimony–from his own autobiography–and from his biographer and historian, Iain Murray, what his convictions were.
Testimonies
Charles Haddon Spurgeon began his ministry at the age of nineteen. Right from the start, he was a staunch Calvinist. In a letter to his friend, Charles Spiller, a fellow Baptist minister, he described his chief task as a preacher as follows: "[M]y daily labour is to revive the old doctrines of Gill, Owen, Calvin, Augustine and Christ."2 He equated Calvinism with historical and Biblical theology: "The doctrine which I preach is that of the Puritans: it is the doctrine of Calvin, the doctrine of Augustine, the doctrine of Paul, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost."3
One critic of Spurgeon’s was Silas Henn. In his book, Spurgeon’s Calvinism Examined and Refuted (1858), Henn said: "[C]omparatively few in these times, amid such enlightened views of Christianity, dare to proclaim, openly and without disguise, the peculiar tenets of John Calvin. Even in many professedly Calvinistic pulpits, the doctrines are greatly modified, and genuine Calvinism is kept back. But there are some who hold it forth in all its length and breadth, and among these, the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, the notorious preacher at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, is the most prominent."4
Spurgeon’s convictions brought along plenty of enemies and critics, even from within the church. He lamented, "We are cried down as hypers; we are reckoned the scum of creation; scarcely a minister looks on us or speaks favourably of us, because we hold strong views upon the divine sovereignty of God, and his divine electings and special love towards his own people."5 John Anderson of Helensburgh, a friend of Spurgeon, said of him, "Mr. Spurgeon is a Calvinist, which few of the dissenting ministers in London now are. He preaches salvation, not of man’s free will, but of God’s good will, which few in London, it is to be feared, now do."6
Were these the convictions of an immature preacher of nineteen who would later renege? In 1877, during a picnic at the Pastor’s College at which Dr. A. A. Hodge was present, Spurgeon said, "The longer I live, the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection."7 In his mature years, in fact, near the end of his life, he testified, "In theology, I stand where I did when I began preaching, and I stand almost alone."8 Of the articles of faith of the church he founded, the Metropolitan Tabernacle, he said, "As for our faith, as a church, you have heard about that already. We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinistic. . . . Against all comers, especially against all lovers of Arminianism, we defend and maintain pure gospel truth."9
During a vacation to Geneva, Switzerland, to recover from bad health, Spurgeon visited the various sites associated with the great Genevan Reformer. Afterward he wrote a moving eulogy to Calvin in his journal:
Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin; no age before him ever produced his equal, and no age afterwards has seen his rival. In theology, he stands alone, shining like a bright fixed star, while other leaders and teachers can only circle round him, at a great distance–as comets go streaming through space–with nothing like his glory or his permanence. Calvin’s fame is eternal because of the truth he proclaimed; and even in heaven, although we shall lose the name of the system of doctrine which he taught, it shall be that truth which shall make us strike our golden harps, and sing. . . . For the essence of Calvinism is that we are born again, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13, emphasis added).10
Testimonies from Spurgeon himself, and from friends and foes alike all agreed: Spurgeon was indeed a true, full-blooded five-point Calvinist. It takes extreme ignorance to overlook, and extreme prejudice to cover up, this fact.
Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
As Spurgeon himself has lamented, hyper-Calvinism is a label gummed to Calvinists like the scarlet letter, regardless of whether they actually were or not. This misrepresentation is to a large extent due to an ignorance of what hyper-Calvinism actually means. What is hyper-Calvinism? Gordon Clark, quoting from Donald Dunkerley’s article, "Hyper-Calvinism Today," defines the term as follows:
"the view of Calvinism which holds that "there is no world-wide call to Christ sent out to all sinners, neither are all men bidden to take him as their Savior." Hyper-Calvinists . . . maintain that Christ should be held forth or offered as Savior to those only whom God effectually calls.11
The hyper-Calvinist makes the blunder in logic that since faith is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) and not of man’s free will (true premises), therefore, there should be no evangelism, calling, and commanding men to believe (false conclusion). The fallacy of the Arminian is that since men are indeed commanded to believe (true premise), therefore, faith cannot be a gift of God but must be from man’s free will (false conclusions). Spurgeon refuted the hyper-Calvinist and said: "They have said, ‘God has a purpose which is certain to be fulfilled, therefore, we will not budge an inch. All power is in the hands of Christ, therefore, we will sit still’; but that is not Christ’s way of reading the passage. It is, ‘All power is given unto me, therefore go ye, and do something.’ "12
The Arminians misquote these statements of Spurgeon’s to attempt to oppose him to Calvinism. But it is hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism, which Spurgeon opposed. It is a slander, or just plain stupidity, to call a Calvinist a "hyper-Calvinist" and vice versa. No Calvinists believe that the doctrine of eternal election in any way hinders evangelism. Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism are two different theologies.
Two Extreme Sides of the Same Truth?
The modern theological cliche is that while Calvinism upholds the sovereignty of God, Arminianism upholds the responsibility of man; these are but two sides of the same Biblical truth. You hear this repeated so often that after a while, like a hypnotic suggestion, you begin to believe it. But nothing can be further from the truth. It is a blatant caricature to view Calvinism as upholding the truth of the sovereignty of God while neglecting the responsibility of man. Calvinism upholds both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Arminianism upholds neither.
Spurgeon recognized that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not one of "balance." Spurgeon himself preached the doctrine of the responsibility of man vigorously, as only a Calvinist can do. Murray puts it succinctly: "The error of Arminianism is not that it holds the Biblical doctrine of responsibility, but that it equates this doctrine with an un-Biblical doctrine of ‘free-will’ and preaches the two things as if they were synonymous." The doctrine of free will is a foundational tenet in Arminianism. Murray further contends: "That man must be able to believe and repent in order to be responsible for unbelief and impenitency is a philosophical conception nowhere found in Scripture; in fact, it is directly contrary to Scripture."13
Calvinism and Arminianism are not two sides of the same truth. The difference between them is not one of balance or emphasis. The difference between them is one of truth and heresy. William Tyndale condemned the free will doctrine of the Arminians: "[T]hey go and set up free will with the heathen philosophers, and say that man’s free will is the cause why God chooseth one and not the other, contrary unto all of Scripture."14 Because Arminianism is a heresy, condemned as such by the Synod of Dort, 1619, there can be no middle ground, no compromise, between them. Listen to what Spurgeon said: "The Word of God says they [sinners] cannot come, yet the Arminian says they can."15 "When some of us preach Calvinism, and some Arminianism, we cannot both be right; it is of no use trying to think we can be–‘Yes,’ and ‘No,’ cannot both be true. . . . [Spurgeon is applying the law of contradiction.] Truth does not vacillate like a pendulum which shakes backwards and forwards. . . . One must be right; the other wrong."16 In a sermon titled "Free Will–A Slave," Spurgeon preached that "Free will has carried many souls to hell, but never a soul to heaven yet." In the same sermon, Spurgeon quoted Martin Luther: "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."
In a sermon titled "All of Grace," published a few years before his death, Spurgeon said: "The man believes, but that belief is only one result among many of the implantation of divine life within the man’s soul by God Himself. Even the very will thus to be saved by grace is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God."17 In Arminianism, this Scriptural order is reversed, placing the man’s decision before the divine act. Preaching to the unconverted in another sermon, Spurgeon said: "Sinner, unconverted sinner, I warn thee: thou canst never cause thyself to be born again, and though the new birth is absolutely necessary, it is absolutely impossible to thee, unless God the Spirit shall do it."18 That is the point of John 3. Nicodemus saw clearly that it was impossible to be born again. Jesus does not answer and say, "Oh, I was talking about spiritual rebirth, which can be done, and not physical rebirth, which cannot be done." Jesus says the new birth is by the Spirit, and the Spirit gives it to whomever He wants, just like the wind blows to wherever it wants. Regeneration is in the hands of the Spirit, not under the control of the will of man.
For Evangelism or for Mature Audiences Only?
There is a prevalent opinion that says that Calvinism should be, if it is discussed at all, reserved for more mature Christians, not taught to new converts, and certainly never ever preached to the unbelievers in an evangelistic message. This is one result of the idea that Calvinism is somehow incompatible with evangelism. From the several sermons quoted, it is obvious that Spurgeon did not believe that Calvinism should be hidden from the unconverted nor the new believer. Why? Because Calvinism is the Gospel:
[T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called . . . , after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.19
Those who preach a gospel devoid of the five points commonly called Calvinism are not preaching the Gospel at all, but a false gospel.
If Calvinism is appropriate for the unconverted, certainly it is fitting for all Christians. Condemning the preachers who want to censor Calvinism, Spurgeon said: "There has sprung up in the Church of Christ an idea that there are many things taught in the Bible which are not essential . . . that provided we are right in the fundamentals, the other things are of no concern. . . . It becomes an awful thing . . . for men to leave a single mandate unstudied, lest we shall lead others astray, while we ourselves are acting in disobedience to God. . . ."20 Spurgeon said: "It were better for me that I had never been born than that I preach to these people carelessly, or keep back any part of my Master’s truth. Better to have been a devil than a preacher playing fast and loose with God’s Word, and by such means working ruin of the souls of men. . . . It will be the height of my ambition to be clear of the blood of all men."21 He was, of course, referring to Acts 20:26-27, where Paul, in a farewell address to the Ephesian elders, says he was cleared of the blood of all men because he has not kept back any doctrines in his evangelism and preaching. Those who avoid the doctrines of predestination and the inability of man’s will, and who censor others from teaching them, have blood on their hands.
Separation, Not Schism
Did Paul not condemn following any human system? Is Calvinism not a divisive human system in the order of the Corinthian slogans, "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos"? Well, if Calvinism were indeed merely a human system, then there might be some merit to the charge of being divisive. But Calvinism, as we have seen already, is not a human system.
Truth is by nature controversial. Jesus says he came not to bring peace, but a sword. Jesus and his disciples were not persecuted because they were non-controversial. Spurgeon saw as much. He declared, "Controversy for the truth against the errors of the age is, we feel more than ever convinced, the peculiar duty of the preacher."22 Therefore he was not at all surprised by the enmity toward his proclamation of Calvinism, or the doctrines of grace, as he sometimes called it. The reason, he said, is this: "The fact that conversion and salvation are of God is an humbling truth. It is because of its humbling character that men do not like it."23 And because they do not like it, they controvert it.
As for unity, Spurgeon said, "I am quite sure that the best way to promote union is to promote truth. It will not do for us to be all united together by yielding to one another’s mistakes."24 Spurgeon said something that would not sit well with modern day churches: "I glory in that which at the present day is so much spoken against–sectarianism. . . . Success to sectarianism; let it live and flourish. . . . When we cease, each of us, to maintain our own views of truth, and maintain those views firmly and strenuously, then truth shall fly out of the land, and error alone shall reign."25 What Spurgeon meant was that once debates are censored and hushed up, error alone will reign. But if everyone would maintain their views of truth strenuously, there will be debates, and truth will always triumph in any conflict. Error thrives in the environment of "No controversy" and "Don’t talk about it."
Spurgeon eventually broke away from the Baptist Union at the height of the Down-Grade Controversy, October 28, 1887. Murray says, "The Union was preferring denominational peace to the duty of dealing with error and thus, by tolerating sin, they made the withdrawal of Christians unavoidable."26 False rumors and "What is said of us is nothing; but shall truth be sold to keep up a wider fellowship?" "Long ago I ceased to count heads; truth is usually in the minority." As for disunity, Spurgeon, in his magazine, The Sword and the Trowel, 1888, wrote, "As to a breach of unity, nothing has ever more largely promoted the union of the true than the break with the false." In another article titled "Separation, not Schism," Spurgeon wrote, "Separation from such as connive at fundamental error . . . is not schism, but only what truth, conscience, and God require of all who would be found faithful."
No Compromise
Spurgeon withdrew from the Baptist Union precisely because he would never compromise the truth. The Down-Grade Controversy was not about Calvinism in particular, but about the equivocation of terms. This naturally brought in Calvinism, since Calvinism insists on precise definition of terms. Spurgeon wrote of the Baptist Council, "Whatever the Council does, let it above all things avoid the use of language which could legitimately have two meanings contrary to each other. Let us be plain and outspoken. . . . Right is safe, and compromise by the use of double meanings can never in the long run be wise."27
One example of equivocation is on the doctrine of justification by faith. Spurgeon charged Arminianism of leading to legalism by their doctrine of free will. He said, "Do you not see that this is legality–that this is hanging our salvation upon our work–that this is making our eternal life to depend on something we do? Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by the Arminians, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, after all; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature, and a condition of acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the Law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God. . . ."28 To Spurgeon, to equivocate is to compromise. To agree to ambiguous terms is to compromise. Therefore, he made a stand and broke away. Of the one who compromises, Spurgeon said, "[H]e has, in truth, gone over to the enemy."29 Like the weeping prophet Spurgeon prophesied, "We are going down hill at breakneck speed." And like a voice calling in the wilderness, Spurgeon cried and warned: "Let all who love the Lord, and hate evil, come out of this more and more apostatising church, lest they be partakers of the plague which will come upon her in the day of her visitation."30
Conclusion
The Calvinism of Spurgeon brought him nothing but success in his evangelism, seeing his congregation grew from less than twenty to over six thousand. At the same time, it brought him nothing but controversy. Slanders and false reports dogged him all his life long. Through it all Spurgeon never gave way. He stood his ground despite suffering the mental agony from theological antagonism, which was, no doubt, aggravated by physical pain from his chronic illness of gout. To those who are going through the same struggles, Spurgeon gives his consolation: "We need not be ashamed of our pedigree, although Calvinists are now considered to be heterodox." The situation is the same today, if not worse, as in Spurgeon’s day. Calvinism is labeled as "extreme," and worse, "heterodox," while the real heresy, Arminianism, is hailed as orthodoxy. In Spurgeon’s bedroom, Mrs. Spurgeon hung the text, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12). It is an indication of how pressed Spurgeon was from all sides to have to be constantly reminded by that verse every night before he went to bed. He was faithful to the Gospel until death.
Let all who would be true to the Gospel declare with Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
If all men that live or ever shall live should throw up the old Calvinism, there remains one that will hold it, for the reason–that he could not hold any other. I must be crushed out of existence before my convictions of the truth of the doctrines of grace in the old-fashioned form can ever be taken from me.31
Notes
1. Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, 52.
2. Murray, 58.
3. The Early Years, 364.
4. Murray, 54.
5. Murray, 59.
6. The Early Years, 339.
7. The Early Years, 79.
8. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest, 393.
9. The Full Harvest, 12.
10. The Full Harvest, 29.
11. Gordon Clark, The Atonement, 136.
12. Murray, 49, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 42.
13. Murray, 61-62.
14. Murray, 9.
15. Murray, 90, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 53.
16. Murray, 57.
17. Murray, 84.
18. Murray, 87, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 3.
19. The Early Years, 168.
20. Murray, 56, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 6.
21. Murray, 39, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vols. 19 & 27.
22. Murray, 13.
23. Murray, 60, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 6.
24. Murray, 65, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 6.
25. Murray, 66.
26. Murray, 144.
27. Murray, 147, quoting from The Sword and the Trowel, 1888.
28. Murray, 81, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 9.
29. Murray, 161-162.
30. Murray, 133, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 15.
31. Murray, 168, quoting from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 30.
August 1996

This comes from the archives of www.trinityfoundation.org which is an excellent website. I would throughly suggest you go an look around their. Granted there is a good bit of things I do not agree with them on, but there theology is for the most part Biblical and sound. Hope this gives some insight of blessing to at least on reader, but whither it be so or not the so the Lord's Will be done.

In Christ,
TheReformer

saving faith

2006-01-25T07:38:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

This is a brief interuption of the current study on the Reformed theology. This is an excerpt from Gordon H. Clark's Book What is Saving Faith? This is an excellent book. Granted I do not believe with everything that Clark says he is ,for the most part, and excelent reformed theologian.

What Is Saving Faith?
Gordon H. Clark...
Some deny that Christ earned anything for his people, because, they say, contradicting Scripture, God never deals with his creatures in terms of merit or justice, but only in terms of grace, which is unearned.Some say faith alone is not enough; that one must also work (obey, remain faithful) in order to be justified, or to stay justified. These claim James as their authority, twisting his words to contradict Paul and to fit their works-religion. Some deny that Christian faith is knowledge, asserting that it is a personal encounter, or a personal relationship, or membership in a covenant community. They say that those who think we are saved by knowledge, such as the Apostle Peter, are Gnostics. Those attacking Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ fail to consult Scripture to see what faith is and does. But one theologian has: Gordon H. Clark. More than 30 years ago Clark examined hundreds of passages of Scripture about faith and published his findings in two seminal books, Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos. More than three decades later the pseudo-scholars and theologians who now pass as Christian thinkers remain ignorant of Clark’s work. Clark’s exegesis exposes the theology they have fabricated in their books and schools as Romantic fables.1Logos means a sentence, a proposition, a doctrine, an object of intellectual apprehension.
John 7:36, 40 are similar. In the first of these the logos is the assertion, “You will search for me, but you shall not find me.” In the second, the plural occurs: “Some of the crowd, when they had heard these words, said, ‘This man is indeed the prophet.’”
Restricting this section to instances where a definite sentence or sentences define the logos, we come next to John 10:19. Here Jesus had just said that he lays down his life voluntarily; no one can take it from him. “Then the Jews, because of these words [logoi], were again divided.” The words referred to are roughly all of the first eighteen verses.
Here then is a long list of cases where the meaning of the term logos is determined by quoting it. It is always an intelligible proposition. At this point, and before continuing with the list of instances of logos, the reader might want to know what the connection is between the sentences or propositions just given and the Logos of verse 1 who cre-ated the universe and enlightens every man who comes into the world. How did the argument get from Christ to sentences? The connection is this: The Logos of verse 1 is the Wisdom of God. To him his worshipers erected the architectural triumph Hagia Sophia, the church in Constantinople dedicated to the Holy Wisdom of God. To purloin Heraclitus’ phrase, this is the Wisdom that steers the universe. But this steering, the plan on which the universe is constructed, the providential governing of all creatures and all their actions, is based on wise counsel. God does not work haphazardly. He acts rationally. Some of this wisdom is expressed in the propositions of the previous list. They are the mind of Christ: They are the very mind of Christ. In them we grasp the holy Wisdom of God. Accordingly, there is no great gap between the propositions alluded to and Christ himself. The Platonic Ideas, as interpreted by Philo, and by him called Logos, are the mind of God. Some of these Ideas are given to us in the words of John, or in the words of Christ recorded by John. This is how Christ communicates himself to us. Is it completely ridiculous to suggest that this is why John uses the term logos for these two superficially different purposes? But now to continue the list of instances.
The meaning of the term logos is determined by quoting it. It is always an intelligible proposition.
If the listing of these verses seems tedious, it is at least overwhelming and leaves no defense for those who deprecate words and doctrine.
Since some fundamentalists also have accepted the anti-intellectualism of the liberals, we must patiently plod through the list. John 15:3 is, “You are already clean because of the theology I have spoken to you.” John 17:6 and 14 hardly need to be quoted. Verse 17 says that God’s word is truth. And in verse 20 of the same chapter the logos referred to is the future preaching of the disciples.
To make this a complete list of all the occurrences of the term logos in the Gospel of John, we have only to add John 1:1 and 14. In the beginning was the Logos, the logic, the doctrine, the mind, the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God is God. This Logos became flesh and we saw the glory of his grace and truth.
Contemporary theology frequently distinguishes between the Logos and the rheemata: the Word and the words.The Word is in some sense divine. If it is contained in or somehow mediated by the Bible, the Bible is “authoritative,” though not infallible. Just how false statements can be “authoritative” the liberals do not explain. Reception of the Word for them is a sort of mystic experience without intellectual content. The words, on the other hand, are human, fallible, and mythological. The supernatural truth of God is so different from human truth that they do not coincide at a single point and not even omnipotence has the power to express it in human language; therefore the words, the concepts, are mere pointers to an unknowable object.
They conclude from the meagerness of their thinking that thinking and believing are inadequate.
There is no antithesis between believing Jesus as a person and believing what he says.
6:69 says, “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” John 8:24 says, “You do not believe that I am [Jehovah, or, the one I claim to be].” John 9:18, “the Jews did not believe that he had been blind.” John 10:25-26, “I told you [that I am the Christ] and you do not believe [that proposition]; the works I do…testify of me [that I am the Messiah], but you do not believe [the propositions they assert].” John 11:26-27, “Everyone who is alive and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this [proposition]? Yes, Lord, she said, I have believed that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who comes into the world.” In John 11:42 Jesus spoke out loud “so that the crowd would believe that you did send me.” But why tediously quote in addition 12:38, 47; 13:19; 14:10-11, 29; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 19:35; and 20:31?
äubigen.” But in English the connection between the Greek verb believe and its Latin noun is obscured by translating the noun as faith instead of belief.
This Latin anti-intellectualism, permitted by the noun fides, undermines all good news and makes Gospel information useless.
This part of the study pays no attention to the grammatical object of the verb. Reliance is now placed on the conclusion already drawn that noun and pronoun objects are linguistic simplifications of the intended propositional object. To believe a person means precisely to believe what he says.
The Apostle John never mentions a mystic experience. He repeatedly says, if you believe, you are saved. Belief is the whole thing.
10:25-28 say, “You do not believe because you do not belong to my flock. My sheep listen to my voice…. I give them eternal life.” This states what is essentially both the negative and the positive proposition; and the negative is clearly implied in 16:9: “He will convict the world of sin…because they do not believe on me.” Then if one supposes that God granted the petitions of the high-priestly prayer, the positive statement is implied in 17:8-10, 16-17, 20-22, and 26.
Editor’s Note:

Truth Cont.

2006-01-21T17:34:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

Now this has been a very long blogg thus far. As a refresher course, this all started by talking about the major premise of the Reformation that is Sola Scriptora (Scripture Alone). This discussion about the Bible and science is a very brief example of the nature of the Truth contained in the Holy Scriptures. This will conclude the final portion on science, there may also be some Bloggs on how the Truth of the Bible played out in The Arts and other areas affected by the Biblical reformation.

Last time I made the proposition that only the God of the Bible could sustain scientific invention. Now why would this be? The earlier proofs set the other gods against the God of the Bible in that they were impersonal, limited, and illogical. Whereas the God of the Bible is by definition a personally infinite logical Creator. The God of the Bible created the universe based on the logical Person that He is. Why is this important, and why am I rambling on about it for so long? The fact that science only developed in Europe is no coincidence. Science developing only in Europe and therefore not being developed anywhere else is because Europe had the advantage of having the Christian consensus that the other geographical regions of the world did not. In other cultures the gods that were considered the creators were not very logical, and if they were not why should anyone try to understand the world? It is not that the other cultures did not have the intelligence or the opportunities to develop science, its just they had not reason to. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were not Divine, they were amplified humans. They were so arbitrary and illogical why should anyone try to understand the world. As before stated the Greeks did have empiricism, but they never applied there knowledge to anything and never attempted to develop their thoughts. The Romans even had steam power, but the inventors never did anything with it. The Islamic countries never could have science because it would establish law that would hinder Alla. The Chinese had impersonal deities and were encouraged to meditate. Meditation will only obtain a few moments of silence. It will never render any truth facts about the world we live in. In opposition to this the Christian man has not only the opportunity but a reason to discover the world around him. In order to understand more and therefore praise more the Almighty God one should investigate His handiwork. Can we not learn of the excellences of His Reason by seeing how this universe is put together? The fact that the Christian man believes God to be the God of reason suggest that His creation will reflect this Heavenly wisdom. This is why the world could not have been created by chance. It is far to complex and intricate to be formed by random chance. The evolutionist cannot account for this fact, but to the Christian this is just one more evidence of the greatness of our God. Who but the LORD could form such a wondrous world? This is how the Christian world view lead to the rise of modern science. Man not only wanted to study the world (research) but wanted to apply rhetorical thought so that he may , "Not only understand that something works, but also know how and why it works".

This is what the Reformation drew forum its Biblical basis. The fact that the Reformers saw the Bible as the written Word of God gave them a source of knowledge and understanding. The Bible gave them a concrete foundation to understanding all of life.

By Christ Alone,
The Reformer

Truth

2006-01-19T07:36:00.000-08:00

Ah ha, I said I would blogg today, and I have. Well, rather am now, so it is not a completed action the past yet. Oh well, I was never very good at grammar anyway.

Greetings and salutation,

The point that was made yesterday is that the Reformers hold a high view of Scripture because it is the written Word of God. This makes the Bible Truth. Now Before I go on I would like to reentered a point that I made in yesterdays blogg. That the Bible is not exhaustive in Truth. Not all things that are true are contained in the Scriputres. Some might say that science is not in the Bible, and in a direct way this is quite true. The Bible does not speak of some scientific truth like how many lightyears away is the closest star from our solar system. In some areas it is not that the Bible gives us specific instruction on all things. It may give a simple black and white Truth, then in other times it gives us concepts or a framework with which to find more truth. For instance I am reading this book called The Victory of Reason. Now this book was written by a man who is very pro-Catholic and Obviously I am not to thrilled about that. Once you pick out the Catholic propaganda it has some really good information. The book is describes how having a Christian basis in Europe lead to logical and scientific discovery. This is a perfect example of how the Bible does not necessarily gives specifics, but it does give the frame work.

The Bible puts forth the world as being created by God. The Bible clearly states that God is a God of reason and knowlegde. The Greek word given to Christ is logos which is a word that means a doctrinal/intellectual proposition. The Bible over and over again states that God is a God of knowledge. "...The LORD is the God of Knowledge; and by Him actions are weighed."(I Sam. 2:3) The Proverbs continually say that one should seek wisdom, and that, "The Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge"(Prov. 1:7) Another great passage from Proverbs is chapter eight, particularly verses 12-36. This passage deals with wisdom and how wisdom seeks out knowledge and understanding. That at the time of creation Wisdom was with God and God took delight in wisdom. (Some say that the "Wisdom" in this chapter refers to Christ, but that is for another time) So the Bible does not only give man truth about Himself, but it also reveals truth about the world that we live in. Now, before we forget why all this matters, I ws going to make the point that even when the Bible does not give exhaustive truth on a topic, it does give at least a frame of reference. Science proves this point quite well. Science is made up of theorizing and research. The cultures outside of Europe never engaged in science. The Greeks were nothing more than empiricist. Whenever they did theorize, it was never researched or proven. Aristotle said that the heavier an object is the faster it will fall to the ground. A quick trip to the nearest cliff would disprove this as false, but that never happened. Chinese and Islamic cultures fell to the same fate. They could have discovered science, but why didn't they? It was because their gods were not personal nor were they logical. The impersonal deities of the East focused mainly on meditation to find truth, but this will render you nothing more than a few hours of science or repetitive noise. The Islamic teachers forbade rules of nature from being formulated because they thought that they would interfere with Alla's freedom in the world. Only the personal infinite God of the Bible gave men reasons to inquire into their world. Now this has been a long blogg, so it will be finished tomorrow.

In the Fear of Christ,
Reformationman

Sola Scriptora Cont.

2006-01-18T18:03:00.000-08:00

Well Greetings everyone (that is if any still is looking at this),

I thought that I would wait a long time before I put on the continuation of the last blog. Ok, maybe I didn't mean for it to be this long, but you know how time flies. Anyway, I said last time that the concept of Scripture Alone is one of the five most important points of the Reformation. This is the first and the most important point. Form this point all other doctrines of the Reformation flow. The Catholic Church of the Middle ages had strayed away from the early form of Christianity. Many of the erroneous ideas of the Catholic Church come from the fact that over about one thousand years the church view the Scriptures less and less. It was so bad that at the time of Luther the Pope's words were more important than the Bible. The Catholic's had kept the Bible from the common people by only letting it be translated in Latin, a language which only church officials and highly educated people could comprehend. This resulted in the people having to depend on the Priests and the Pope to tell them what the Bible said. Of coarse the Pope never twisted the Words of Scripture(Yea right).

So when the Fathers of the Reformation found the Truth of the Bible, they were overjoyed. They held a high and exalted view of the Scriptures. This came oyt in the Reformation art. Hence the statue of Farrell, he is standing there holding his Bible up high. Almost like he is saying to you and to me, "Look, see, come and read the Word of the living God". This statue epitomizes the heart of the Reformation, namely that the Word of God alone contains the Truth. Notice I did not just say truth, I said the Truth. Now don't mistake me, the Bible does not contain exhaustive Truth about life, But what it does contain is the Truth. The Truth that the Bible contains works as a frame for the rest of life. More on this will follow tomorrow.

By Grace Alone
Reformationman

Sola Scriptura

2005-11-13T17:47:00.000-08:00

Well, you might just be wondering why it is that this picture is here in my blog? It is all quite relevant to the first of the five main points of the reformation. The first, and most important, is "Sola Scriptura". For those of you that do not comprehend, that means "Scripture Alone". First, it is important to know that tis statue is exactly. This is a statue of a Swiss refomer by the name of Farel.... to be continued on Monday

The Reformer

sylibus

2005-10-23T18:11:00.000-07:00

Greatings most esteemed theologians,

I am the reformer, also known as the reformation man. Yet verily I also resapond to titles like: Martin Luther, John Calvin (two preferences), gopchik, Jan Hus ( or John Hus, Jan Huss, Jon Hus, Jon Huss, spelling is not the issue) melechthinon, Wycliff, Agustine, Athenasius, John Knox, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Gordon H. Clark, and or any other name of any reformed person that you can think of.(I think you get the point) Yet if I am called pope, holy father, holy see, successor of peter, preist, and arch bishop, thou shall most surely be smitten!!!!!!

Well, enough with that anyway. If you did not read my blog over on zanga, it is a blog of theological and at times philosophical thought. If it has not already been implied, I teach and therefore blog from a reformed perspective. I also dont really do intentionally funny things for the purpose of being popular. If no one reads my blogs and it is considered boring...fine then. This is a serious blog devoted to theology, Biblical exigesis, Scriputural Critiques of modern and ancient philosopy and ecclesiastical topics.

The first dissertations will be on the five main points of the reformation. Not to be confused with the five points of Calvinism. They dont contradict each other, they are merely diffrent things. This will take at least five or more blogs to complete.
Only by the Grace of God through Faith Chirst
The Reformer

Welcome

2005-10-04T18:43:00.000-07:00

Greetings one all:

This is the good ( perhapse not in a literal way) old reformer here. Also known as the reformation Man. I Had a blod over on Zanga named Solomon's Portico. Well, it is about nine a clock and I still have homework to do because I was out all night looking for a book....which I never found. This is not a formal introduction but I promise that there will be many theological discussions to come. Untill tomorow.

The Refomer