Live your theology.

T-Fish from Man’s Chief & Highest End is starting a series on the “other guys” of the Reformation.  The dude knows his history.  You should check it out.

From the post:

Lets face it, the Reformation has a tendency to be only about Luther, Calvin, and maybe Zwingli, Knox, and Wycliffe. I’m not saying these men are not important, quite the opposite, they are the most significant figures of the period, but their preeminence has a tendency to overshadow other men that played key roles in the reformation. Often some of these lesser known men were responsible for formalizing the theology of the more well known figures. Further, some of these men were dear friends, confidants, and supporters of the other figures. Our first “second-tier” reformer is Johannes Oecolampadius.

Here we have a straightforward & unique post on planting churches.  Rather than espousing the “planting is a hard grind, you’ve got to tough it out no matter how long” approach, it takes a look at the possibility that the non-responsive plant isn’t meant to happen (think Paul in Athens).

The logic was simple: if God has called, God will provide. If God is not providing, perhaps you’re misreading his call.

Unfortunately, no one is giving church planters a similar litmus test. We tell them that it’s going to be hard and difficult and they’d better be ready for a beating. As a result, many naïve young men assume that the harder and more difficult the work is, the more they’re in the center of God’s will. Sometimes, that’s true. But not always.

So let me propose a litmus test for church planters: if you’ve been at it for a year and haven’t gathered 30 adults around your vision, you might need to hang it up. At the very least, you need to ask some hard questions that you might not want to ask.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule. The problem is: every church planter thinks he’s the exception to the rule. So I’m going to do the unpopular work of telling you that you’re probably not. I’ll trust the Spirit and wise mentors to tell you otherwise if they need to.

If you can’t gather 30 people in a year, maybe you’re working in hard soil and God is calling you to be faithful for another year. But maybe you just don’t have the visionizing and entrepreneurial aptitude to start a church from scratch. If that’s the case, you need to have the humility to admit it. It’s wisdom – not failure! – to acknowledge your gifting and find a role in ministry that fits it.

I know there are some current/former/prospective church planters that read.  What do you think?  Did/do you have a “breaking point” where you’ll cease & desist with the planting?

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.

First: Sunday Morning Message

I preached Ruth 1:6-22 twice now, first in Tacoma and then at the Columbia BPC in Oregon yesterday. Each time the emotions boil over — not sure what to think about that. I can assure you that with this particular message, I just can’t seem to keep it in.  In homiletics they’d always say that such a thing was fine, so long as it didn’t distract from the message.  I don’t think I did from the feedback & conversations that followed, but listen for yourself & let me know what you think.

Second: More Contests

If you’re feeling blue about missing out on that epic 1-in-9 chance to win a prize, Mark from Here I Blog has a contest of his own.  Presumably with worse odds given his large (and deserved) following… but you never know!

How does one go about the unpleasant business of determining whether or not they are anathema?  Perhaps the first step is to discover exactly what it means to be anathema.  To be declared anathema is to be cursed on an ecclesiastic (church) level and then excommunicated.

In the Roman Catholic Church, there are several ways in which one might be anathematized.  Tim Prussic reviewed one in particular over at Providence this morning.  While Tim deals with Canon XII of the Council of Trent, I want to look at Canon XI which states:

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The Scriptures declare that we have been saved by Grace through faith alone, apart from any works, lest we start saying that we had some part in our own salvation and boast about it (Eph. 2:8-9).  Believing the Scriptures to be true, I’m left anathema by the Roman Catholic Church. That’s to be expected.  I grew up Lutheran, danced with Roman Catholicism before actually studying my Bible, and ultimately became Reformed.  What’s unexpected (and funny) is the posthumous anathematizing of folks like the apostle Paul (who wrote Ephesians 2:8-9) and Augustine, who had declared in the Council of Orange (centuries before Trent):

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

So let this be a cautionary tale to those who put their foundation in something other than the Word of God.  The time may come, as it did for poor Augustine, when you may be declared anathema for adhering to a Magisterial decree closer in line with the Scripture than what the present age Powers-that-be feels like believing.  And really, what can you say to stop them?