Archive for the ‘ Christianity ’ Category
Here’s a helpful post by Justin Taylor that details the theological differences that spell out why Mormons are not considered part of Orthodox Christianity. Their denial of the the Trinity & monotheism couples with an unbiblical view of eschatology (among other things) to create a theology that can be called many things, but ought not be deemed Christian.
The reason the issue gets muddle in the minds of many is because Mormons (like liberal mainline “Christians”) use orthodox and biblical terms, but completely change what the terms mean. Sort of like what an SBC armenian does when he preaches a sermon on Calvinism. So if a Mormon says “I believe in Jesus”, what they mean to say is “I believe in Jesus.”*
*By Jesus we mean the literal offspring of God the father, who also sired Satan, Jesus’ brother. Jesus is a god, but not the only God. He’s a member of the polytheistic godhead. In the OT, Jesus & Jehovah are the same God, while God the Father is referred to as Elohim.
So that’s a problem. If I promise you some ice cream, but then fill a waffle cone with Brussels sprouts, you’ve got good reason to consider me as a liar.
I might insist “No, no, no. See ‘ice cream’ really is another word for Brussels sprouts, but people like Ben & Jerry corrupted the word so that it’s associated with a decidely un-Brussels sprout product & I just found out the truth last year.” If you know anything about ice cream at all, you can call me on it and move on.
The problem today is too many people have at best a vague idea of who Jesus is, but don’t invest in reading what He has revealed about Himself. So when Mormons talk about Jesus, they assume that we’re all on the same page. They’re a big lot of folks who don’t actually know what ice cream is. That’s why there’s even a conversation about whether or not Mormons (or any other Jesus denying group) should be considered Christians. They aren’t.
If you’re further interested, here’s an article written by one of my professors on how DNA evidence refutes central Mormon claims.
I had the opportunity to read an advance copy of Jonathan Weyer’s upcoming book The Faithful. The book itself is a fun & compelling piece of Christian horror (an emerging genre, I’m told). It’s a ghost story written from the perspective of a young reformed Presbyterian pastor. An interesting conversation in the book deals with a passage from Deuteronomy:
“When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this. (Deuteronomy 18:9-14 ESV)
A character in the book then suggests that these things are forbidden, because they are real. Necromancy is something that can be pursued, wickedly mind you, but should be left alone by the command of God. So while there’s a standing order in Scripture not to actively pursue such things, the Bible is silent about what to do if ghosts reach out to you. It’s an interesting thought, and one that works well in the book.
I think on this topic every time I read the Biblical account of the witch of En-dor communicating with what appeared to the ghost of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:6-19).
So what’s your opinion on ghosts? No such thing? Demonic manifestations? If you’re a denier, is there a biblical reason you believe this? Is the denial of ghosts a reflection of a hyper-materialistic society?
Fly Casual? Sure. Worship casual? Well...
Would you consider your worship casual? Is the way in which you go about worshiping God relaxed? Sort of a time to chill, not be too heavy. Just have a good time, stuff like that? Is the way you worship casual? Is it, to take words from the Directory of Publick worship a ” grave and seemly manner”, or is it more chill?
Pastor GW Fisher’s sermon from Sunday evening has been in my this week. The thing that has been sticking with me is a point he made about the nature of worship. Specifically, he looks at the casual style of worship so popular today, and suggesting that while the kids might be all right, a casual worship of God isn’t.
Most folks that I know who employ a laid back style or worship (I’m thinking of corporate prayers that begin with “Hey God… “, sermons that are more stand up than worship, etc.) go to one or two similar proof texts. They point out that God is a God of Mercy, and doesn’t desire that we sacrifice our personalities and they also point to the fact that the veil between God and Man has been torn (Matthew 27:51) – so the formality of OT worship is gone. Another popular idea is that our relationship to God is altered in such a way that we approach him as we would our natural father “Hey Abba” (Galatians 4:6).
While I wouldn’t dispute any of those passages, do any of them actually provide license for a casual worship in the larger context of Scripture as a whole? In the sermon, the argument that our intimate knowledge of God through Christ gives us license to worship in a casual manner is tested against instances against some of the Scriptures where God most intimately reveals Himself:
After God declares his mercy (for thousands) in Exodus 34 to Moses we read:
And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped. And he said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.” (Exodus 34:8-9 ESV)
Moses responds not by saying “Whew, well that’s great God. Say, I wanted to talk to you about my people…” and then continue to chit-chat with God in a common fashion, like a couple of guys sitting at a bar, but from a position of worship (the KJV paints him as lying down as one dead) he pleads with God.
But that’s Old Testament. What about how we respond to God now that Jesus is in the picture (as though God changed his mind about His holiness after the Incarnation)? Consider how the apostle John reacted to being with Christ in Revelation 1:17-19
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.
John personally knew Jesus. He personally saw the love of Christ. He witnessed Jesus’ death and resurrection. He heard with his ears when Jesus called God Abba. He meets Jesus in His glory & he doesn’t respond “Hey! Jesus! Awesome.”
Rather, he falls down like one dead.
In these examples, we see the response from men who met God in a very near sense. I’m not advocating that we fall down dead as soon as prayer starts, but if Christian worship is a gathering of the church, where God is to be worshiped with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28-29) then how do we move from Moses & John’s response on the one hand and get to a casual worship akin to a book club on the other?
Oh, that whole Glenn Beck not-a-political-rally-nor-a-doctrinal-rally rally over the weekend wherein he called people back to God and/or Jesus.
The satirical twitter account @XIANITY chimed “BREAKING NEWS: After months of resisting, lone hold-out American Evangelical receives Glenn Beck as his lord & savior.”
For a more substantial analysis let me refer you to Russell Moore’s post. Mark from HereIblog.com does a nice job of detailing the differences of the Mormon Jesus and the actual Jesus over here.
My thoughts:
Brief and undeveloped, to be sure. What are your thoughts on the issue? Are you as uncomfortable as I am? Do you marvel at the number of people demanding a return to God who won’t take the time to actually look into what God has said about himself? Has hyper-republicanism in the church set this in motion?
I am looking for some serious apologetics from the Armenian side – no straw men requested. Having recently discussed election during a study of 1 and 2 Peter and hearing an attendee express complete disdain for the idea, I want to know the strong points of the ‘free choice’ side and the verses that support it. Who would be blowing the trumpet on that bandwagon and why?
Ultimately, I believe all discussions of election eventually return to the debaters’ views of who God is and what he does in the process of salvation, but for the time being, what are the specific arguments that favor free will?
Known and investigated verses-
John 3:16 – emphasis on ‘whosoever’
2 Peter 3:9
Ezekiel 18:23
Ezekiel 18:32
Ezekiel 33:11
1 Timothy 2:4
Are there other verses that seem to promote a free will offering to all?
Jed Hansen is a regular contributor of the TBPC Men’s Forum. He has served as a short term missionary throughout the world through UPI.
A Small Fellowship, get it?
Acts 2:42 is a fantastic passage for seeing what some of the earliest Christians focused their attentions on after Peter’s sermon on Pentecost: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, notes the focus of these early believers: Apostolic teaching, Fellowship, breaking of bread, & prayers. The early Jerusalem church does a good thing in focusing on all of these issues, and we do a bad thing when we favor one against the other. Today I want to look at the problems that come with ignoring the koinónia or fellowship mentioned.
How is fellowship corporately lost? I submit that it is most often (but not always) muscled out in favor of teaching. (pause for collective gasp).
This is not to say that biblical teaching is unimportant, Luke may have been submitting an unordered list, but if he were to have put the early church’s focus in order of importance, apostolic teaching would still have been at the top. A problem does arise, however, when all a church does is teaching. If the pattern is simply show up, sit down, close your mouth, and listen to the teaching (repeat once during midweek and twice on Sundays and make it the predominant feature of any other ‘event’) and then leave, then the only familiarity will be from identifying the sometimes nameless faces. The body will become familiar with one another, but that’s about it. In college I was familiar with a bunch of people, saw them every day in class. We listened to the lectures together, but I wasn’t about to mistake that for fellowship.
This is not the way it’s supposed to be. We’re supposed to be able to rejoice with one another when they rejoice, weep with one another when they weep (Romans 12:15). This is difficult to do if our “fellowship” finds its equivalence with the people who work in the office above or below you.
“That’s what’s-her-name from the office downstairs.”
You know the face, but not the name. Or maybe you know the name too and a few trivial factoids.
“You’re the guy who likes motorcycles, right?”
That’s nothing substantial. Nothing shared. When Romans 12:15 gets applied to that sort of a situation, the best rejoicing is a half-hearted “That’s great!” or “Good for them!”. The closest weeping a temporary “That’s awful.” or “That’s too bad.” depending on severity.
This isn’t the only problem with having a church without fellowship. Christians will often seek Christian fellowship elsewhere if there is no opportunity for unified fellowship among the brethren. So, the brethren can’t find fellowship with all the church when they’re together as a church, they will often find Christian fellowship with the church members they come in contact with most often in their day to day lives. There’s nothing bad about this by itself, everyone does that already. I have closer friends than others when it comes to the church based on how often I see them, but when there’s nothing substantial at home base, those outside relationships become the fellowship that is perpetuated when the church gathers. True koinónia fellowship for one outside of a given clique seems next to impossible. The love is from without, and it’s brought within.
I propose that a healthy church develops a deep love for one another within through regular and active Christian fellowship. This is more than sitting with your family eating potluck food that someone else brought. That love spreads outside with a desire to seek and serve the lost (rather than find a missing fellowship). When the lost are discipled and come in, they join a fount of love and fellowship that exists among the body because of Christ, rather than through a clique because of work or shopping habits.
So, how to get that done? Are you part of a clique yourself? Is it even a bad thing?
Mark Driscoll wrote an article on the predominant tendency of boys to just stop maturing and never become men. They become guys instead. Michael Kimmel wrote a book called Guyland about this very issue. It’s worth reading if you’ve ever found yourself wondering how we reached a point where the High School graduates (regardless of whether they’re class of ’89 or ’09) still act like they never left. A generation of Woodersons if you follow my meaning.
Driscoll talks about the various manifestations of the guys, paying some attention to guys (read: neither boys nor men) in church:
Men in the Church: Cowards and Complainers
What happens if you walk into the church and try to find out what a man looks like? First of all, you’re not going to find a lot of guys in most evangelical churches. The least likely person to see in church is a single, twenty-something male. He is as rare at church as a vegan at a steak house.
In the world, boys who can shave are children who are consumers. In the church, boys who can shave are cowards who are complainers.
A buddy of mine calls them evangellyfish because they have no backbone. They don’t declare a major, church, theology, or fiancé. They don’t want to fail and they think if they don’t try, then they can’t fail. And by definition, that’s a failure.
They are, however, endowed with the spiritual gift of complaining. They say, “I hate the church. The church just wants my money.” As if the church wants his futon, Xbox, light beer, and computer filled with free Internet porn.
Here’s the cold hard truth: it’s a lot harder to do something than it is to complain about those who are doing something. The notorious sin of Christian guys is complaining about guys who are doing something rather than doing something.
I know these guys. They’re not exact replicas of the guy Driscoll is writing about, but there are similarities. Especially the points about complaining and avoiding marriage. You can read the entire article here. Tell me what your elf-eyes see about this.
For Lost in Translation, I take a document written in ye old tymey English and put it into modern terms. More or less. Today’s subject is from the Directory for the publick (translated public) worship of God.
Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures
READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein .i.we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.
Reading the Bible publicly is a part of worship. By reading God’s Word in our worship services we’re demonstrating that we are completely reliant on His revelation (found in His Word) for our lives. We also show the Scriptures to be authoritative by making it a part of the worship service. ”one mean sanctified” is another way of saying that this is a method that God has shown as being helpful for the wisdom of the congregation. The public reading of God’s word has been practiced throughout church history, in the Old Testament and New (Nehemiah 8:1-8, Luke 4:16-19)
Pastors are good to read and so are teachers. It sounds cute when little kids recite memory work. Not really appropriate for worship, though.
Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.
Interns are allowed to read Scriptures to the congregation. Read more
Wrong perfect.
The discussion on Spiritual Gifts from yesterday made me think about 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 — specifically the part about “the perfect”. Most charismatics I know (and also the ones I don’t know) understand this passage to mean the second coming of Christ. But not so fast…
I recall a great presentation from seminary a couple of years back by Pastor Rich Peralez. I’ll try to give the bullet points from memory. The text says (emphasis mine):
[8] Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. [9] For we know in part and we prophesy in part, [10] but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. [11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. [12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
Now, both sides agree that what’s partial & passing are the spiritual gifts, such as tongues. It’s a matter of when. If the perfect means Christ’s return, then spiritual gifts should continue until then. But what else would it mean?
I think the answer is Scripture. At the time Paul is writing his epistle to the Corinthians the canon was not yet completed. There was more to come and it would be profitable for every good work (1 Timothy 3:16-17) and not something to add to (inferred from Revelation 22:18).
You may say “That seems like a stretch.” But consider the following about the 2nd coming interpretation.
You see, the whole passage reads as a comparison of something incomplete and fleeting contrasted against a fullness. Paul uses the metaphor of a dim mirror vs. the clear vision of seeing face to face. Some do injustice to the literary style by mixing the metaphor & taking face to face to mean looking Jesus in the eyes… but there’s no indication that’s what it means and it strains his comparison. These gifts are finite and show knowledge and authority of God for those in and around the church. The completed canon of Scriptures do the same — but in an entirely sufficient manner. So if the gifts are a dim reflection of God’s perfect and completed Word to us… why do we still need them? And if Paul is talking about the Scripture instead of Christ’s return, why would we insist that he was wrong about the gifts coming to a close (1 Cor. 13:8)?
