Thursday, September 29, 2011
Gifts Given and Recieved
Thursday, April 21, 2011
My yoke is easy and my burden is light
-
Mat 5:43-5:48
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Monday, April 4, 2011
God's Word, or Our Words?
Footnotes:
- Steve Maltz, How the Church Lost the Way, Saffron Planet, pp 72
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Why Normative Interpretation?
Because it is Consistent
There is, of course, more than one method of interpreting Biblical texts. The hermeneutic of choice for this blog is called Normative, Natural, and sometimes the historical-grammatical interpretive principle. Some refer to it as literal.
The term "literal" implies, incorrectly, that figures of speech and symbols are not considered relevant to scriptural interpretation. Therefore the term is avoided because of the baggage that accompanies it. As will be seen in the "Golden Rule of Interpretation" there are indeed symbols used in the Bible, these however are usually explained in the context of the text they appear in.
One other hermeneutic which will be mentioned here is the allegorical hermeneutic. This interpretive approach expounds the belief that the use of symbols and allegory (fables) is used extensively throughout the Old and New Testaments. There are many reasons this is believed to be so by its adherents, far too many to be addressed here. The problem with this approach is that those who make use of it cannot agree amongst themselves what is allegorical and what should be read literally. Furthermore where there is agreement concerning what is allegory and what is not, the interpretation of those allegorical passages cannot be agreed upon.
The allegorical approach is rejected here, and the normative, or natural interpretation of Scripture is affirmed. Scripture must stand upon its own merits. ( 2Ti 3:16 ) If it does not then man becomes the final arbiter of truth, and each may do what is right in his own eyes.
This declaration is made now so no one is deceived into thinking there is another approach being taken. The reader will find affirmations of:
- The Jewish roots of the Christian faith
- Israel's, that is the Jewish peoples, rightful place as the chosen people of God
- Orthodoxy (right teaching/opinion)
- The Ministry of the Holy Spirit
- The basics of the Christian faith
- Anti-Semitism, in all its guises
- Replacement Theology - The Church is not Israel
- Heresies
- Apostasy - departures from the faith professed
- Various hermenuetical approaches
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Roots of the Nazi Legal System
- ‘The leaders of the [German Christian] movement, Pastors Julius Leutheuser, Joachim Hossenfelder and Siegfried Leffler, strove to convince their fellow clergy that only a completely new interpretation of Christianity … could meet the needs of the new age. They sought to rid the Church of its ‘pre-scientific’ mentality and its archaic liturgies, and to substitute a new revelation as found in Adolf Hitler. The essential was not Christian orthodoxy but Christian activism that would follow the example of the ‘heroic’ Jesus … In the new creation of the Nazi Party, they saw a vehicle for their programme that offered fellowship which they believe to be characteristic of true Christianity. If Hitler could perform what they called Christian deeds, then orthodoxy could be abandoned.’
Footnotes:
-
Augusto Zimmermann, Darwinian Roots of Nazi Legal System, downloaded from http://creation.com/darwinian-roots-of-nazi-legal-system 16 March 2011.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Olivet Discourse
-
The Olivet Discourse, recorded in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21, is one of the most important prophetic utterances in the Scriptures. If one has a clear understanding of this prediction, one will have an outline into which almost all other subjects of prophecy will fit perfectly.1
- The discourse is recorded in three of the four Gospels. Matt 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21:5-36
- Purpose: To answer the the question When and how would the Messianic Kingdom come into being?
- Israel had just rejected the Messiah, so the Kingdom could not be set up at that time.
- Matthew 23:37-39 - denounced Israel's leadership, He would not return again until Israel requested Him to.
- Question: What circumstances would cause this invitation to be issued?
- All Gospels must be studied to get the answer to the question
-
Three questions asked by disciples:
Tell us, when shall these things be? These things refer to:
- The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple;
- What shall be the sign of your coming? This question concerns the second coming and not the rapture which is imminent;
- What shall be the sign of the end of the world? This is a question about the end of the age, rabbinic theology recognised two ages, this age, and the Messianic age. So the question is what is the sign that the last days of this age have begun and that will lead to the Messianic Age?
- The Rise of False Messiahs
- The Existence of Local Wars
- Matt 24:7-8, Mark 13:8 and Luke 21:10-11 - World wide wars will indicate that the end had begun
- Fulfilled by World War I and World War II
- Nation will rise against Nation, and Kingdom against Kingdom is a Jewish idiom which means world wide war
- Mark 13:9-13, Luke 21:12-19 - But before all these things...
- There will be a time of suffering, and a successful ministry
- Luke 21:20-24
- Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. When this happened they were instructed to get out of Jerusalem. A. D. 66 Cestus Gallus surrounded Jerusalem, but noticed his supply lines were not secure. He lifted the siege and returned to Caesarea. The Jewish believers left Jerusalem.
- A. D. 68 Vespasian and his Son Titus surrounded and, in A. D. 70, destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
- 1,100,000 Jews were killed in this assault. Not one Jewish believer died.
- Jerusalem will not be free of Gentile nations until her Messiah returns.
- Matt 24:9-26, Mark 14-23
- Matt 24:9-14 - first half of Tribulation
- Matt 24:9-14 is not dealing with the same events as Mark 13:9-13 and Luke 21:12-19
- Matt 24:15-28, Mark 13:14-23 - second half of Tribulation
- Matt 24:29-30, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27
- Preceding the sign of the second coming there will be a blackout
- The sign of the Son of man will appear in Matt verse 30a
- This sign will be coupled with God's glory and will be the Shechinah Glory
Footnotes:
- Dr. David L. Cooper, The Olivet Discourse according to Matthew 24 and 25, Downloaded from http://www.ariel.org/dlc/dlc-wg-43.htm 5 March 2011, Copyright © 2009 Ariel Ministries. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
- Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah, Copyright © 2003,2004 Ariel Ministries. All rights reserved. Used by permission. pp 621 - 650
Friday, March 4, 2011
A. D. 70: Preterism's Prohetic Dead End
by Randall Price
The following article is reproduced with the permission of the Author in it's entirety without alteration or erasure. The article is an edited version of the original and appears in the January/February 2005 edition of Israel My Glory. It is reproduced here as it appeared in that edition of Israel My Glory. Dr. Randall Price is the Director and Founder of the World of the Bible Ministries and the full text of this article concerning preterism is published in PDF format on his site at http://www.worldofthebible.com. We thank Dr. Price, World of the Bible Ministries, and Israel My Glory for permitting us to use this excellent analysis of Preterism.
In recent years a system of interpreting biblical prophecy known as Preterism has invaded the church, brining confusion and division to many congregations that have historically held to the future return of Jesus Christ. Promoted by popular radio teachers, such as Reformed scholar R. C. Sproul, whose book The Last Days According to Jesus advances the moderate preterist position, Preterism has made inroads into evangelical seminaries and stimulated public debates on Bible college campuses. Although most Christians have never heard of the teachings of Preterism, its approach to prophecy diminishes the prophetic hope of the church while undermining the basis of the prophetic promises for Israel.
What is Preterism
Derived from the Latin word preter (past), Preterism holds fast that most, if not all, of the prophetic events of the Old and New Testaments have already been fulfilled. Like historicism, which interprets the book of Revelation as symbolic of church history, Preterism spirutalizes prophecy to make if fit historical events in the Church Age. However, unlike historicism, Preterism seeks to fit certain, if not all, prophecies relating the Christ's Second Coming and Israel's restoration into a specific historical event in the past. As moderate preterist Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., explains, "Matthew 24:1-34 (and parallels) in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In Revelation most of the prophecies before Revelation 20 find fulfilment in the fall of Jerusalem."1 Preterists contend that Jesus' use of the phrase this generation in His Olivet Discourse requires fulfillment in the first century; R. C. Sproul, in particular, argues that Christ's words failed unless this interpretation is adopted. By contrast, Futurism (what we believe) maintains that the literal fulfillment of Messianic prophecy in Christ's First Advent confirms that His prophetic teaching must also be interpreted literally. Thus the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation will find fulfillment in the future, particularly during the Tribulation and Christ's Millennial reign. Two types of Preterism today contend with each other for primacy. Partial, or Moderate, Preterism is the most popular version. Although it argues that most prophecy (such as the events of the Tribulation) was fulfilled in A.D. 70, it still understands that some prophetic teachings like Christ's Second Coming and the bodily resurrection, have a future fulfillment. Partial Preterism, therefore , holds to two Second Comings: one that occurred in A.D. 70 as a parousia (Greek, "coming" or "advent") and Day of the Lord for the purpose of judging the Jewish nation and one that will occur universally at the climax of human history as the final and ultimate Day of the Lord. Leading advocates of Partial Preterism who have published popular defenses of their position include R. C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., as well as the late David Chilton, who changes to Full Preterism after his books were published. Full, or Extreme, Preterism contends that all prophecy (including Christ's Second Coming and bodily resurrection) was fulfilled by A.D. 70. Full Preterism maintains that believers have been spiritually resurrected and the creation spiritually restored, so the church presently exists in the eternal state of the new heavens and new earth. According to Thomas Ice, executive director of the Pre-Trib Research Center and one the foremost experts on Preterism, there is no evidence of any preterist interpretation in the history of the early church through the Reformation. 3Preterism's View of Israel
Preterism teaches that Christ came in A.D. 70 to judge Israel and end the Jewish age. Like historicists, preterists argue that the promises made to Israel were misunderstood as national promises. Therefore, when Israel rejected Christ, these "spiritual" promises passed to the church, the "true Israel." Preterism, however, which forces the fulfillment of most prophetic texts, particularly the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple, in to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, views the destruction of the Jewish people as the central focus of prophecy.-
As Preterist David Chilton stated, The Book of Revelation is not about the second coming of Christ. It is about the destruction of Israel and Christ's victory over His enemies in the establishment the New Covenant temple...Revelation prophesies the judgement of God on apostate Israel; and while it does briefly point to events beyond its immediate concerns, that is done merely as a "wrap up", to show that the ungodly will never prevail against Christ's Kingdom. 3
-
Preterist Gary DeMar explains:
There is nothing in Jesus' teaching in this Gospel [Matthew] which suggests that after this period of judgement there will be a restoration. ... The Apocalyptic Discourse (ch. 24) moves away frm Jerusalem. ... Does the Bible, especially the New Testament, predict that the Temple will be rebuilt? It does not. ...To make the Temple of stone a permanent structure in the light of Jesus' atoning work would be a denial of the Messiah and His redemptive mission. 4
Preterism's Problems
(1) - The Date of the Book of Revelations
For the prophecies of Revelation to fit in to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, it is necessary to date the composition of the book before A.D. 70. Preterists understand the necessity of dating the book early in Nero's reign (A.D. 64-67), confessing, "If the book was written after A.D. 70, then its contents manifestly do not refer to events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem." 5 However, if dating the book was so crucial to its interpretation, why did not the apostle John clearly indicate somewhere in its 404 verses the time of its writing? However, as Mark Hitchcock, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the subject, concluded, "I do believe that the case for the late date (A.D. 95) can be proven at least by a preponderance of the evidence, if not beyond a reasonable doubt." 6 This evidence includes the external testimony of the most reliable early church fathers, such as Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202), who made the unambiguous declaration, "For if it were necessary that the name of him [Antichrist] should be distinctly revealed in this present time , it would have been told by him who saw the apocalyptic vision. For it [the Revelation] was seen no long time ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign." 7 In addition, the internal evidence favours the late date in the time of Domitian. This support includes (1) the condition and description of the seven churches in Revelation 1-3, which make no mention of Paul's missionary journeys; (2) John's banishment to Patmos, rather than execution, as with Peter and Paul under Nero; and (3) the prophecy of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:9-22:5), which implies that the old Jerusalem has already been destroyed.(2) - Lack of Historical Agreement With First-Century Fulfillment
If Preterism's interpretation of prophecy were correct, the historical record should support details. However, the opposite is the case. For example, the direction of Christ's advent to Jerusalem (Mt 24:27) is compared with lightning flashing from "east to west." But the Roman army, which preterists interpret as fulfilling this prophecy, advanced on Jerusalem from "west to east." Even if we take this simply to mean the Roman army advanced "like lightning" (i.e., quickly), history reveals a very slow assault on Jerusalem; the war lasted several years before Jerusalem was even besieged! In many cases a "correlation" can only be made through the eschatologically biased interpretation of first-century historian Flavius Josephus, such as (1) associating divine signs with the Roman army's impending conquest; (2) reinterpreting the text to fit the preferred historical data, such as taking "the clouds of heaven" as the dust kicked up by the Roman army's advance; or (3) taking statements that do not fit the historical events, such as the unprecedented and unsurpassed nature of the Tribulation, as hyperbole in order to claim first-century fulfillment. Even the central concept of Preterism - that Christ's judgement-coming was to end the Jewish nation - cannot stand in light of Judaism's continued vitality and the modern state of Israel. The historical consequences for Israel in the aftermath of A.D. 70 were indeed critical. But the Jewish people and Jewish nationalism not only survived, but hope for the restoration promised by the prophets increased. Moreover, the "Temple consciousness," perpetuated through rabbinic Judaism's spiritual transference to the synagogue, also expressed itself in tangible ways. Whenever circumstances favoured rebuilding the Temple, there were Jewish activists who returned to Jerusalem to attempt it. Today the Roman Empire is long vanished; but the Jewish people are again in the Promised Land, in control of the Holy City and its Temple Mount, and making plans to rebuild the Temple. Is it reasonable to accept the events of A.D. 70 as a fulfillment of God's program for the Jews but not accept these subsequent events as also part of His ongoing divine plan? A futurist interpretation agrees much better with Jesus' statement in the Olivet Discourse that, when He comes, the Jewish people are to "look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near." (Lk 21:28) Clearly this text teaches that Christ's Second Coming involves Israel's redemption, not destruction. As a result of such historical and textual incongruities, Robert Gundry commented concerning the preterist interpretation of a first-century fulfillment:-
Whether writing just before, right at, or just after 70 C.E., Mark [or any of the other gospel writers] is not liable to have suffered from very much ignorance of what went on. From beginning to end, then, the events and circumstances of the Jewish war disagree with the text of Mark [also Matthew and, in part, Luke] too widely to allow that text to reflect those events and circumstances. 8
The Dangers of Preterism
Every teaching has consequences for the spiritual life. Therefore, the teachings of Preterism must be considered for their practical dangers. Preterism teaches that Christ has already returned (spiritually) and, in its extreme form, that He will never return again bodily. However, the divine declaration in Act 1:11, "This is the same Jesus...will so come in like manner as you say Him go into heaven," contradicts both Partial and Full Preterism. The teaching then is false. It not only distorts the prophetic program and denies the blessed hope (Ti 2:13) but promotes the deception that there will be no end to history, that evil has been eradicated from the world (Full Preterism), and that believers now live in the eternal state. Such false doctrine also prevents Christians from obeying the manifold commands of Scripture directed to those awaiting Christ's Second Coming (1Th. 1:10). Practical admonitions given in light of Christ's return - such as "awake...walk [behave] properly" (Rom. 13:11-13; cf 1 Th. 5:4-10); "live soberly [sensibly], righteously, and godly" (Ti. 2:12); and live in purity (1 Jn. 3:3) - have no meaning to those who believe His coming is past. Preterism also corrupts the understanding of the present work of Satan and his demons by teaching Satan was crushed and bound at the cross and that apostasy is a thing of the past. Yet Scripture states that our struggle is "against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12); "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" (1 Jn 5:19); and "in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Ti 4:1). How then can Christians obey such commands as "Resist the devil" (Jas 4:7; cf 1 Pet 5:9) and "from such people [apostates] turn away!" (2 Tim 3:5)? Moreover, the preterist approach to prophecy affects the way Christians understand God's purpose for the Jewish nation and their political views toward the existence of the modern Jewish state. Preterism replaces Israel with the church, teaching that "ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God's Kingdom" 8 If Israel's future salvation and restoration (Rom 11:25-27) in God's program is abrogated, so, too, is God's promised blessing for the world (Rom. 11:12) in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:3). The apostle Peter summed up the divine verdict towards Preterism when he wrote, "Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Pet.3:3-4), Even so, come, Lord Jesus.Endnotes:
- Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), p. 159.
- Thomas Ice, “The History of Preterism,” The End Times Controversy. Edited by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), pp. 42-46.
- David Chilton, Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of Dominion (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985), p. 43.
- R. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church. 4th ed. (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999), pp. 52, 61.
- R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 140.
- Mark Hitchcock, “The Stake in the Heart – The A.D. 95 Date of Revelation,” The End Times Controversy, p. 125.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.3.
- David Chilton, Paradise Restored, p. 224.
Randall Price is an archaeologist, author, and president of World of the Bible Ministries, Inc., an organization dedicated to exploring and explaining the past, present, and prophetic world of the Bible. Copyright © 2004-2006 World of the Bible Ministries, All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
A Rebuttal of Preterism
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Separation of Church and State II
Footnotes:
- The Roots of our Faith, Normative Hermeneutic
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Separation of Church and State
Separation of faith and reality
A Christian, standing for the Federal parliament in Australia, recently lamented that he found it very difficult to get overt support from others in the churches. When pressed, the reluctant often respond, ‘You don’t mix politics and religion’. These people seem to have a misguided notion of what ‘separation of church and state’ means (and it’s not in the constitution of Australia, or the USA for that matter). It originally meant that no one Christian denomination should have favoured status as a ‘national church’, not that Christians should have no input or influence in government. Jesus taught that we should be ‘salt’ and ‘light’ to the communities in which we live (Matthew 5:13 ff.). Surely this includes every legitimate avenue of human endeavour, including government, which God ordained (Romans 13). Certainly, the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, did not regard withdrawal from public life as a pious thing to do.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
I have the right to be poor!!
How refreshing to find this on a Church website:
- The Church must be free to be poor in order to minister among the poor. The Church must trust the Gospel enough to come among the poor with nothing to offer the poor except the Gospel, except the power to discern and the courage to expose the Gospel as it is already mediated in the life of the poor…When the Church has the freedom itself to be poor among the poor, it will know how to use what riches it has. When the Church has that freedom, it will know also how to minister among the rich and powerful. When the Church has that freedom, it will be a missionary people again in all the world. When the Church has the freedom to go out into the world with merely the Gospel to offer the world, then it will know how to use whatever else it has–money and talent and buildings and tapestries and power in politics–as sacraments of its gift of its own life to the world, as tokens of the ministry of Christ. – William Stringfellow - A Private and Public Faith (1962)1
Footnotes:
- Downloaded from Christ's Sanctuary www.christsanctuary.org.nz, February 21, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Things are Getting Better.
Really?
At the turn of the 21st Century, the world was immediately gripped by the War on Terrorism followed by the Iraq War. In reflection, the 20th Century was a period marked by tremendous technological and economic progress — but it was also the most violent century in human history. It witnessed two horrendous world wars, as well as the conflicts during the Cold War.1
No further comment. Footnotes:
- WAR AND PEACE IN THE 20TH CENTURY AND BEYOND, Downloaded from http://www.worldscibooks.com/general/5130.html 10 March 2011 Copyright © 2011 World Scientific Publishing Co. All rights reserved. Updated on 9 March 2011.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Are all Theologies Equal?
A comparitive time line
Kingdom Now | Normative Interpretation |
| 1. Death of Yeshua (Jesus) | 1. Death of Yeshua (Jesus) |
| 2. Resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus) | 2. Resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus) |
| 3. Impartation of Holy Spirit | 3. Impartation of Holy Spirit |
| 4. Kingdom established | 4. Great Commission |
| 5. Church works to establish God Kingdom on earth so Yeshua may return to rule. | 5. Church preaches the gospel to all nations |
| 6. Kingdom is established on earth, Yeshua can now return | 6. Church is taken out of the world which is about to be judged |
| 7. Yeshua (Jesus) Returns | 7. Anti-Christ is revealed |
| 8. Messiah rules on earth | 8. Tribulation |
| 9. Eternity | 9. Yeshua returns to earth with the Church and rescues Israel |
| 10. ??? | 10. Millenial Kingdom established by Yeshua |
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
God does not care about your theology. Really?
I was listening to a world renowned preacher this weekend. In the process of his address he said "God does not care about your theology." This is true, but untrue. In the context of the address and his heart to save the lost, his assertion that God is not interested in getting your theology correct is an attempt to get as many people across the line into his eternally loving arms as possible. However, the idea that God does not care about what you believe about Him and how he works his plans for the world out is, in my opinion, not correct. Why then do I say that is God interested in your theology? The reason is simple. Heresy, which is wrong theology, causes a loss of freedom and adds unnecessary burdens to peoples lives. When Yeshua called the Pharisees a brood of vipers it was not just because they were hypocrites. It was that their theology was wrong and it was hurting people.
-
Mat 23:1 - 23:36
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples. "The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are the authorized interpreters of Moses' Law. So you must obey and follow everything they tell you to do; do not, however, imitate their actions, because they don't practice what they preach. They tie onto people's backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry, yet they aren't willing even to lift a finger to help them carry those loads. They do everything so that people will see them. Look at the straps with scripture verses on them which they wear on their foreheads and arms, and notice how large they are! Notice also how long are the tassels on their cloaks! They love the best places at feasts and the reserved seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to have people call them 'Teacher.'
You must not be called 'Teacher,' because you are all equal and have only one Teacher. And you must not call anyone here on earth 'Father,' because you have only the one Father in heaven. Nor should you be called 'Leader,' because your one and only leader is the Messiah. The greatest one among you must be your servant. Whoever makes himself great will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be made great.
"How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You lock the door to the Kingdom of heaven in people's faces, but you yourselves don't go in, nor do you allow in those who are trying to enter! "How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You sail the seas and cross whole countries to win one convert; and when you succeed, you make him twice as deserving of going to hell as you yourselves are! "How terrible for you, blind guides! You teach, 'If someone swears by the Temple, he isn't bound by his vow; but if he swears by the gold in the Temple, he is bound.' Blind fools! Which is more important, the gold or the Temple which makes the gold holy? You also teach, 'If someone swears by the altar, he isn't bound by his vow; but if he swears by the gift on the altar, he is bound.' How blind you are! Which is the more important, the gift or the altar which makes the gift holy? So then, when a person swears by the altar, he is swearing by it and by all the gifts on it; and when he swears by the Temple, he is swearing by it and by God, who lives there; and when someone swears by heaven, he is swearing by God's throne and by him who sits on it.
"How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You give to God one tenth even of the seasoning herbs, such as mint, dill, and cumin, but you neglect to obey the really important teachings of the Law, such as justice and mercy and honesty. These you should practice, without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain a fly out of your drink, but swallow a camel! "How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You clean the outside of your cup and plate, while the inside is full of what you have gotten by violence and selfishness. Blind Pharisee! Clean what is inside the cup first, and then the outside will be clean too! "How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look fine on the outside but are full of bones and decaying corpses on the inside. In the same way, on the outside you appear good to everybody, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and sins. "How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You make fine tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of those who lived good lives; and you claim that if you had lived during the time of your ancestors, you would not have done what they did and killed the prophets. So you actually admit that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets! Go on, then, and finish up what your ancestors started! You snakes and children of snakes! How do you expect to escape from being condemned to hell?
And so I tell you that I will send you prophets and wise men and teachers; you will kill some of them, crucify others, and whip others in the synagogues and chase them from town to town. As a result, the punishment for the murder of all innocent people will fall on you, from the murder of innocent Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar. I tell you indeed: the punishment for all these murders will fall on the people of this day!
-
The study of a god or gods and the truthfulness of religion in general; An organized method of interpreting spiritual works and beliefs into practical form
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Theonomy or Antinomianism?
The Law of Moses and The Law of Messiah
Theonomy is the attempt to, or belief that we should, re-establish the Law of Moses as the rule of law. Antinominanism is the belief that there are no rules or laws we should or need to adhere to. Both views are incorrect. The Law of Moses, is not longer in effect. This is the result of Messiah's (Christ's) work on the cross. The Law of Moses has been disannulled. (Rom 10:12, Gal 2:16) Scripture is clear that we no longer are under the law. So what then do we say, are we under no rule or law of life. Certainly not. We are under a new law. This new law is called the Law of Christ and the law of the Spirit of life. (Gal 6:2, Rom 8:2)1 Dr Fruchtenbaum says this:
-
The believer is free from the Law of Moses, but he is also free to keep parts of it. Thus if a Jewish believer feels the need to refrain from eating pork, he is free to do so. The same is true for all the other commandments.2
Footnotes:
- Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Law of Moses and the Law of Messiah, pp 8
- Ibid, pp 13
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Pharasies and Legalistic Christianity
These are notes from Arnold Fruchtenbaum's Life of Messiah tape series. This is to be seriously recommended if you are serious about learning more about the Historical and Jewish context of the Life and Times of Yeshua.
Pharisaism and Legalistic Christianity
Legalism was the Pharisaical error that Yeshua corrected. He railed against the additions to the Mosaic Law, and defended and defined the Mosaic Law as sufficient. The Mishnah was the oral law of the Jews, and it was not written at the time of Christ. When He said "You have heard it said love your neighbour and hate your enemies" he was quoting the mishnah. His response was Mosaic Law, "I say to you love your enemies..." Legalism had become extreem. The disciples were charged with working on the Sabbath when they ate corn they had just picked. They were accused of harvesting, threshing, winnowing, and storing (eating), all forms of work, on the Sabbath. It got so bad it was considered risky to walk on grass on the Sabbath in case you might accidentally "harvest" a wind-sown corn. Acts of Mercy and Necessity were never against the Mosaic Law. The temple priests worked every day of the week, and twice as hard on the Sabbath. The Pharisees had no difficulties with this inconsistency. In their attempt to "close the wholes in the fence" left by the Mosaic Law burden upon burden had been heaped upon the people. Jesus corrected this, explained how he Law should be interpreted (Sermon on the Mount), and in doing so proclaimed the Mosaic Law AS WRITTEN to be sufficient. Scripture is sufficient with out human additions or interpretation. Christianity has also its own form of extreem legalism. Don't dance, don't listen to rock music, don't use dice. What is wrong with using dice? Gamblers use dice and we should not give the appearance of doing evil. On his basis we should not drive cars because bank robbers drive cars, we should give the appearance of doing evil. Yeshua came to free us from bondage, not add burdens to our lives.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Roots of Our Faith
The Root of the Christian Faith is Judaism.
After God the Father, His Son Yeshua (Jesus), and the Holy Spirt, we owe everything to our Jewish brothers. Christianity is a sect of Judaism or it is nothing. All of our doctrine stands or falls upon the Jewish Torah, Writings, and Prophets. These "Old Testament" scriptures provide the only basis for the life of Messiah (Christ), His death, and His resurrection. Jesus was a Jew. When He speaks of His brethren in Revelations He is referring to those to whom He has a blood tie. The Jews. The Church has done much violence not only to the doctrines of The Faith, but have physically and spiritually killed and cursed those to whom a great debt of gratitude is due. After nearly 2000 years of history we seem to have learned very little. The Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant. In this covenant God has promised he will curse those who curse Abraham and his descendants, and bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants. To spell it out, Abraham's descendants are the Jews.We have persecuted and killed the Jews in the name of Messiah (Christ). This is...not good. The Council of Nicea was when the Church refuted Arianism and guarded the faith against this heresy by way of a formal creedal statement. Sadly however, it was also the council when the Christian faith turned its back on the foundations upon which it stood. By establishing within the body of Christian theology a supposedly scriptural basis for Jewish persecution it established the foundation for future acts of anti-Semitism and murder. Two things have happened at the time of Nicea. The Church became a "State" entity with the full backing of the Emperor Constantine, and the Christian Church expelled Judaism from its ranks. The Church was never meant to be coupled with political power. God looks upon this union as an infidelity. Sadly, historically, when reformers set upon the political organisation that the Church had become their answer was to establish another "State" Church. Thus the mistake was repeated. Also, and even more tragically, the reformers persisted in the rejection of Judaism. Steve Maltz obverves the following of the proceedings at Nicea. The Council has just rejected Arianism.- There was another issue discussed at this Council. It was deemed so important that Emperor Constatine himself took a leading role in the discussion. It concerned the timing of Easter. Because of the growing animosity towards the Jews, there were movements seeking to strip away all connection between this festival and the Jewish festival of Passover, where it owes its origins. Constantine is now reading the letter that he was going to circulate to churches throughout the Christian world.
- ...When the question arose concerning the most holy day Easter it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that his festival should be celebrated on the same day by all, in every place...And truly, in the first place, it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing we should follow the customs of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who polluted wretches, having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds...I is fit, therefore, that rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order...Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.
Footnotes:
- Maltz, Steve, How the Church Lost the Way, and how it can find it again, (Saffron Planet, United Kingdom, 2009) pp 47 - 48
- Fruchtenbaum, Dr Arnold G.The Local Church, downloaded from ariel.org, 24-Jan-2011, pp 7
Apostasy - A case study
The following link is from a member of a church who has experienced the "hostile takeover" of a Bible believing CONGREGATION by Kingdom Now theologians. This post is instructive. Clearly shown is the type of subtle, and not so subtle, shifts in exposition of the Biblical text. The writer is succinct and direct. If you are interested in what to watch out for in your congregation, READ THIS!!.
Why is the church losing its young people?
A must read editorial from creation.com. Why is the church losing its young people? If we cast doubt upon the validity of the Scriptures (Bible), we cast doubt on everything that is "Christian". If we adopt an attitude that makes the Bible no more that a series of myths or legends then we have no grounds upon which to make claim to anything of greater value than Greek or Roman mythology. Genesis 1:1-11 is foundational to the entire cannon of Scripture. Without it, neither Christianity nor Judaism has any validity. This principle was exemplified by a conversation I had with one of my many ex-brother-in-laws many years ago. My brother-in-law handed me a book en-titled Women hating writings. Naturally enough, within the pages of this book was a snippet from the Bible, taken out of context. Of course a (convivial) conversation ensued about the "lies" in the Bible. He held the position the Bible was untrue and could not be relied upon and I of course attempted to refute this. My final statement was "I would never give up my life for a fairytale," to which he responded "exactly." This is the damage done to the reputation of the Christian Faith by those who deny the validity and historical accuracy of the Bible. No less than the salvation of those who do not yet know Messiah (Christ) has been lost because of this wholesale abrogation of the truth by those who profess its belief.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
What Messiah (Christ) did for you on the Cross
When Yeshua (Jesus) died on the cross at Calvary, it was no accident. This was not a defeat for Messiah (Christ). It was God's ultimate triumph over evil. Yeshua (Jesus) was born to die on that cross. It was the purpose for which he was born. Without Yeshua (Jesus) dying on that cross, mankind would have no way to enter Heaven. Ariel Ministries discusses this topic in more detail in Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum's papers Why Did Messiah Have to Die? and The Results of the Death of Messiah. So what happened on the Cross? Messiah (Christ) became "sin" for us. Yeshua (Jesus), who lived a perfect life, who fulfilled ALL the requirements of the Mosaic Law, did not get killed, but offered up Himself as a perfect sacrifice (Eph 5:2, Heb 9:26, Heb 10:12) for the sins of all mankind. The only sacrifice that was able to satisfy God's requirement for justice once and for all. The sacrifice which Yeshua (Jesus) offered on the cross paid the penalty due to all men. All men have sinned. The penalty required for sin is death. Messiah (Christ) died on the Cross, a life willingly laid down for us (Jon 10:17-18), to pay our penalty. Because of Yeshua's (Christ's) death on the Cross we can enter into relationship with The Father. Once we believe and have satisfied the requirements of salvation we receive (instantaneously) the deposit of the Holy Spirit as a seal confirming that we now belong to Messiah (Christ). The condition of being saved is irrevocable, that is, it can not be undone. It is a one way ticket. This is the promise made to every one who believes in Messiah (Christ)...
-
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
God
God - Theology Proper
For an in-depth discussions about God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit please see the following studies from Ariel Ministries: The study of God is know as Theology Proper. It is not possible to do justice to this topic in the space available, we therefore try to set down the most important concepts only, and sadly only briefly touch on each.The Trinity
There is only one God. God is comprised of three persons. These persons are distinct and separate personalities, and are not one person.| Reference to the unity of God is well established in the Old Testament. The most well know example, especially amongst Jews, is the Sh’ma of Deuteronomy 6:4. Sh’ma Y’israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad. – Translated this is Hear O Israel, the Lord, your God, is one Lord. Dr Fruchtenbaum again emphasises the fact that the more correct translation here is “your Gods” Therefore the correct translation would be The Lord, your Gods, is one Lord. Thus the Old Testament supports multiple personalities within the single “entity” of God. |
|
Attributes of God
- Omniscience - The Omniscience of God comprehends all things - things past, things present, and things future, and the possible as well as the actual.1
- Holiness - The holiness of God is active. As a primary motive, it incites all that he does; therefore He is righteous in His ways. Though infinitely holy, He nevertheless maintains a relation to fallen creatures; not a quiescent aloofness from them, but a vital pulsating nearness. His is not a holiness which is engendered by a sustained effort or preserved by segregation from other beings. The holiness of God is intrinsic, uncreated, and untarnished; it is observable in every divine attitude and action. It embraces not only His devotion to that which is good, but is also the very basis and force of His hatred of that which is evil.Thus there is in divine holiness he capacity for reaction toward others which is both positive and negative. 2
- Justice - ...God has absolute right and authority over His creatures. In his rebellion against God, the creature steadfastly refuses to recognize the truth concerning the Creator's right and authority. God could have created or not at his pleasure...Since the Creator's authority is absolute, it is a superlative cause for gratitude that God is perfect in justice. Divine justice is exhibited in the fact that righteous laws are given to men, that these laws are given an impartial execution. No favoritism is ever indulged, though infinite favor is extended to those who come under the righteous provisions for salvation made possible through Christ's sacrifice for sin. On this it may be remarked, that at no point is divine justice more observable than in the plan of redemption. Holiness dictates that there shall be no leniency towards evil on the part of God. It is true that He considers our frame and remembers we are dust; but God never condones sin...To reject this open door of salvation which Christ is and wherein God without impairment to His holy justice can execute complete and perfect grace toward the sinner, becomes at once the final, all-condemning sin.3
- Love - God has not attained to love, nor does He by effort maintain love; it is the structure of his being. He is the unfailing source of all love...As no other attribute, love is the primary motive in God, and to satisfy His love all creation has been formed.That infinite love has always existed between the Persons of the God-head and that God in the most worthy sense loves Himself supremely, cannot be questioned. The divine love thus did not begin to be exercised only when creatures - the objects of His love - were created.4
- Goodness - This attribute, if contemplated as that which is within God, is akin to His holiness; if contemplated as that which proceeds from God, is akin to love. The infinite goodness of God is a perfection of His being which characterises His nature and is itself the source of all in the universe that is good.5
- Truth - He not only advances and confirms that which is true, but in faithfulness abides by His promise, and executes every threat or warning He has made. Apart from the element of truth in God there would be no certainty whatsoever in this life.6
- Freedom - The will of God is free. It acts in the way of wisdom, is exercised by infinite power, and upholds only His righteous purposes and ways; yet it is free in the sense that it is independent of all His creatures as well of all their actions.7
- Omnipotence - The infinite power of God.
- Simplicity - By this term it is indicated that the divine Being is uncompounded, incomplex, and indivisible...Simplicity of being is not a contradiction of the Trinity of Persons in which mode He subsists. The fact of the Trinity does not predicate three Essences; it rather predicates one Essence and the one Essence is simple in itself.8
- Unity - God is one essence.9 There is one God.
- Infinity - God transcends all limitations which time or space impose. He cannot be imprisoned either in time or space. In like manner, He knows all things perfectly. He is able to bring things to pass, even to create as He will apart from means or material, and always in measureless perfection. In every moral quality He is complete to infinity.10
- Eternity - ...God is said to be "the eternal God." He is from everlasting to everlasting...The pure idea of eternity is too vast for human thought.11
- Immutability - Immutability is the state or quality of being that which is not capable or susceptible of change....In no sphere or relationship is God subject to change.12 (James 1:17)
- Ommipresence or Immensity - He is everywhere present13
- Sovereignty The sovereignty of God is discerned in the absolute manner in which all things have been assigned their respective places in creation, in appointing men their day and generation as well as the bounds of their habitation, and in the exercise of saving grace.He is Creator and hist dominion is perfect and final
The authority of God is established over the redeemed by the purchase which that redemption was wrought
He is in authority over those among the redeemed who willingly yield their lives to Him.14
Footnotes:
- Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Prologemena, Bibliology, Theology Proper, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 1976), 192
- Ibid, 202
- Ibid, 203-204
- Ibid, 205-206
- Ibid, 206
- Ibid, 207
- Ibid, 209
- Ibid, 213 - 214
- Ibid, 215
- Ibid, 215
- Ibid, 216
- Ibid, 217
- Ibid, 219
- Ibid, 222
Baptism
For a full discussion of this topic please see Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum's paper The Ordinance of Baptism.
- You do not have to be baptised to be saved
- Being baptised is a decision for the believer to make
- Believers should be baptised because:
- Messiah (Christ) commanded it, therefore it is the first act of obedient discipleship
- It is an identification with Messiah (Christ), the believer identifies himself, or herself, with the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus)
- Baptism is by full immersion (Greek baptizo = "to immerse")
- Baptism is in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mat 28:18-20)
- Only believers (those who are saved) are to be Baptised
The Trinity, The Duality of Christ’s Nature,
And the Consequences of Departing from Christian Orthodoxy
God as a triune God, and Jesus known to be fully human and fully divine in nature, are two foundational truths of the Christian faith. Many have sought to redefine these doctrines and find more “sensible” or logical interpretations of scripture with consequences that have been, while unintentional, far reaching and often catastrophic. These departures from the orthodox position concerning how we view God and the person of Jesus Christ have variously resulted in theological systems that have blamed the victim for their undeserved circumstances, encouraged pride in those who have supposedly achieve spiritual perfection, and provided theological and philosophical space for despots to rise and rule as though they were God. Those who have wished to appeal to those beyond the scope of Christian Orthodoxy have attempted to create a more palatable form of the ‘truth.’ They have however created only confusion and have ultimately undermined that which they wished to affirm. Richard Terrell remarked in his book “Resurrecting the Third Reich” that Higher Criticism of the Bible made the scriptures appear to be faulty, historically incorrect, “mythological” and contradictory.1 Such belief systems assisted the rise of such despots as Adolf Hitler by disenfranchising Christians from belief in their faith.
Denial of the duality of Christ’s nature has resulted in heresies which produce the fruits of cruelty, indifference and self righteousness. In denying His divinity such belief systems as adoptionism arise exhorting its adherents to try harder to achieve salvation. In denying Christ’s humanity Docetic heresies arise which allow flight from the reality of human suffering, and “save” its adherents from the cost of participating in fully in life or love.
Fundamental to the Christian Faith is the concept of the Trinity. This distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. The Greeks and Romans had evolved their pantheons, and their gods behaved in a very human like manner. War’s, petty jealousies, and betrayal were the normal standards of behaviour in the heavens. Where monotheism held sway the one god was a singular entity. Islam, which has adopted the idea that Christ did not die on the Cross, worships only one god who has no need of a son. Neither ancient monotheism, nor polytheism, ever presented such an idea as three persons in one God. C. FitzSimons Allison suggests in The Cruelty of Heresy that the fact that the concept of God being triune does not exists outside of the Christian tradition is evidence of God’s existence. Such a doctrine could not be formulated by the mind of man because it is entirely beyond his experience and comprehension. Chafer also says: In the nature of the uniqueness of the Godhead, there is no illustration or parallel in human experience.2
For some a problem arises when it is realised that the word Trinity appears no where in scripture and the concept is not taught explicitly by the text. How then did Christianity arrive at this belief? Some suggest it arose from the day the Holy Spirit fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost as promised by Christ (Acts 1:8), which confirmed what Jesus told them concerning the “Comforter”. The Holy Spirit demonstrated that He too was God. To this idea it should be added that Christ’s exhortation in Matthew 28:10 to baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit gave God a new name. The name of God is that of three persons in one “unity.”3
Christian commentators have remarked that if man could fully understand God and who He is then man would either be equal with God, as who and what He is would fit comfortably within mans intellectual capacity. Chafer says: The nature of God must present mysteries to the finite mind, and the triune mode of existence is perhaps the supreme mystery. M. Coquerel states: “God is the only intelligent Being, for Whom no mystery exists. To be surprised, is to be indignant at not being God.”4
One often quoted definition of God is “God is love.” Here then is a problem for those who assert a single person God. If God created the world, and all that is in it, how could this be true of God before creation? If God is indeed love, then he must be able to practice loving, which is, by definition, a verb. If before creation there was only a single person called God, then how could he love? For God to be love it is required that there be an object for his love throughout eternity. This problem is resolved in the Trinity, three persons, one God, co-existent and eternal.
Scripture makes clear there are three personalities within the Godhead. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments. The first seven words of Genesis when read in Hebrew use the word Elohim. Transliterated the sentence reads Bereshit bara Elohim et Ha-Shamaym vet Ha’aretz. Literally translated this reads: In the beginning created God (plural noun) the the (sic) Heavens and the the (sic) Earth. Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum states that this plural noun is also used to refer to pagan gods.5 The point being that the same word used in two different contexts is always a plural noun. Old Testament evidences for the plurality of the God head also include reference to Plural verbs used with the word Elohim (Gen 20:13, Gen 35:7, II Sam 7:23, Psalm 58:11)6
Reference to the unity of God is well established in the Old Testament. The most well know example, especially amongst Jews, is the Sh’ma of Deuteronomy 6:4. Sh’ma Y’israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad. – Translated this is Hear O Israel, the Lord, your God, is one Lord. Dr Fruchtenbaum again emphasises the fact that the more correct translation here is “your Gods” Therefore the correct translation would be The Lord, your Gods, is one Lord. Thus the Old Testament supports multiple personalities within the single “entity” of God.
The New Testament is replete with examples of references to the triune God. When John baptised Jesus the Spirit descended upon him, and His Father declared Him to be His Son (Mat 3:16-17). Christ gave the commandment to his disciples in Mathew 28:19 to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. C. FitzSimons Allison states Thus, the Trinity is essentially God’s name: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, one God. This being so we are made aware of a God who understands relationships, commitment, love and community. There is no sacrifice of individuality yet perfect unity in the coexistence of three persons with a common purpose and a unity of mind through out eternity.
If ever a case could be made that the Bible contains contradictions then the dual natures of Jesus would be the fertile ground to form such and argument. Is Jesus human or divine? The fact that he is both is not an entirely new concept, as the Greeks and Romans had their demi gods, half man and half god. However, Jesus is not part God and part man, he is fully human and fully God. The Scriptures makes it clear that the Messiah shall be the Son of God. Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man. He was born by Mary, but conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Scriptures which emphasise Christ’s humanity: John 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16, Luke 1:26-38, Luke 2:5-7, John 4:6, Matt 4:2, John 19:28, Luke 22:44, Matt 4:1, Luke 2:52, John 14:28, Luke 6:12, John 11:35, Mat 15:34. In contrast the following emphasise Christ’s divinity: John 1:1, Heb 1:3, Matt 11:28, John 6:35, John 7:37, Luke 2:40, John 8:58, Heb 2:6-7, John 14:9, John 10:30, Acts 10:31, John 11:43, 2 Cor 5:19.9 Addtionally, Phil 2:5-7 clearly states that Christ is God and took on human form: Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
When Christ suffered and died on the Cross it was a human body that suffered and died. When He was born it was as a human child. When He learned, ate, drank and lived in community, it was as a human. As Chafer puts it: If He were not man, He could not die; if He were not God, His death would not have had infinite value.10 Jesus therefore was fully human. It is this fact that supplies mankind the sacrifice that was sufficient to forgive sin. Without the humanity of Jesus no suitable sacrifice could be found to provide the way to reconciliation with God the Father. It is the Humanity of Christ that bridges the gap between man and God. It is the mechanism that allows God to experience the suffering of mankind, know what it is to be tempted in all things, and experience the full frailty of the human condition.
Through the humanity of Christ, God affirms what it is to be human. This is most important. God values humanity and all that being human means. A value considered great enough for His Son to suffer and die on the cross. Being human is affirmed above all other creatures and Christ taking on human form is Gods ultimate statement of the value of humanity.
Christ’s divine nature is seen in the fact that he lived a perfect life. He was sinless throughout his life and it was this that made him fit to perform his duties as the Saviour of the world. His death and resurrection are the ultimate evidence of his divinity.
There have been countless departures from Christian Orthodoxy. The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople wrestled with numerous heretical teachings. Gnosticism, Marcionism, Adoptionism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Docetism, Sabelianism, Macedonianism and Donatism11 were addressed by one or both of these councils. Out of this council came the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople, which affirms the Orthodox faith and answers the teachings which sought to redefine who God was, who Jesus was, and how the members of the Godhead related to each other. The limits and bounds of the Christian faith were defined by the men of courage and devotion who attended these councils. As Alison observes the Creeds were necessary to separate true Christian doctrine from the Docetic and Adoptionist heresies of the day.12
There are two main streams of heretical belief. The first denies the Divinity of Christ, the second denies his humanity. Each of the Heresies listed above can broadly be categorised as falling into one or other of these stables. These two poles of opposition to Orthodox doctrine are, according to C. FitzSimons Allison, centred around two cities; Alexandria and Antioch. Antioch was the home of the adherents of the Docetic grouping and Alexandria that of the Adoptionists. Alison lists the following traits for each: Alexandria; Platonic, Greek, Unity, Allegorical use of scripture, Philosophical (metaphysical), Mystical, Gnostic, no real incarnation, Spiritual, and Flight; Antioch, Aristotelian, Judaic, Diversity, Literal use of Scripture, Ethical, Rational, Legalistic, No real atonement, Historical and self-centredness.
Under Docetism we can list the Marcionism, Montanism, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Albigensianism, Sabellianism (Modalistic Monarchism), Apolinarianism, Eutychianism; Christian Science, and New Age; Under Adoptionism we include Ebionism, Socinianism, Dynamic Monarchianism,, Arianism, Psilanthropism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, and Unitarianism. Each denies a truth about God or the natures of Christ that have pastoral implications.
Allison states: Reinhold Neibuhr was fond of warning that “In the beginning God created man in his own image and ever since man has sought to return the compliment.13 We should not really be surprised that man in his fallen state seeks easier softer ways to reconcile to God. After all, if we can earn our way to heaven then we can look God in the eye and say “Didn’t I do well?”
Each heresy either sacrifices the value of humanity by declaring that it is evil and must be destroyed by the spiritual, or sacrifices the spiritual redemption provided by Christ by faith, and reduces salvation to an unobtainable requirement to achieve holiness through ones own efforts. Both adoptionism and docetism produce fruits in the believer contradictory to those promised by Christ to those who believe in him.
The pastoral implications of Doceism are flight into a “spiritual” realm that either produces license or asceticism. Docetism, in its various forms, asserts that that which is human is either evil or illusory. This results in either denial of the importance of acts committed “in the body”, which provides license to do a one pleases, or a sense that all “earthly pleasures” are evil and must be avoided.
The dangers of such a philosophical view of Christianity are best illustrated by the following example given by Allison in his book “The Cruelty of Heresy”:
-
Gnostic versions of Christianity saw both flesh and time as prisons for our allegedly pure and innocent souls.
The persistence of this idea through the centuries is indicated by Robert Browning’s nineteenth-century poem, “Paracelsus”:
-
Truth is within ourselves: it takes no rise
From outward things, whatever you may believe.
There is an inmost center in us all,
Where truth abides in fullness; and around,
Wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in,
This perfect, clear perception – which is truth.
Blinds it, and makes all error: and to know
Rather consists in opening a way
Whence the imprisoned splendor may escape,
Than in effecting entry for a light
Supposed to be without.
This was favourably quoted in, of all places, a church bulletin. While discussing its radical distortion of Christianity, a young woman responded, “I see nothing wrong with that. Isn’t that the ways things are?” This same young woman later committed suicide and in such a way as to show she meant to free the “truth” and “light” of her “inmost center” by a dreadful attack with a knife on her “gross flesh.” 14
Docetisms tendency is to flee. It sees the flesh as illusory or evil, the spiritual as good and perfect. The above example is an extreme case of the ultimate denial of what it means to be human. Christ by taking on human form affirms our humanity, and the value of human life. The axiom Grace never destroys nature15 is not acknowledged by the salvation offered by Docetic heresies. The spiritual will, Docetism tells us, ultimately free us from our flesh and humanity which is evil and must be rejected. God does not reject our humanity. He redeems it.
In contrast to the escape of Docetism, Christianity promises redemption and internal change that enables two people to love each other in all their concreteness.16 The point Allison is making here is that Docetic behaviour is evidenced in peoples lives in various ways. Flight, being a major facet of this philosophy, is worked out in divorce courts, public bars, drug use, and fantasy filled romantic novels. He points out that the western romantic mindset does not allow for the main characters of a love story to really get to the business of loving one another. As in Romeo and Juliet, there is an intense period of romance ultimately, leading to the suicide and death of each lead character. There is no long term commitment to love one another “warts and all” once the intensity of the first rush is passed. Docetism is the human attempt to live independently of all others by submersing ones self in the spiritual realm which has nothing to do with the nastiness of the real world.
Adoptionism, which denies Christ’s divinity, insists that we can earn our way to heaven. Jesus being “just a man” lived such a perfect life that he was adopted into God’s family. This is what Allison calls the Good News of Adoptionism. All we have to do is to try harder. The pastoral result of this theology is personal striving for the rank of “Perfect”, or a lowering of the standard God has imposed upon human kind to make salvation “achievable”. It produces a self-righteousness in those who have “made it”, and an anxiety in those who know they have not.
Many honest folk have given up trying, realising the impossibility of their task. One such man was David Hume who on his death bed lamented he had not been able to rid Ireland of Christianity. As FitzSimons observes Hume was not rejecting Orthodox Christianity. Hume’s departure from Christianity is a complicated matter. Too few philosophers and historians have noted the understandable reaction, not to orthodoxy but to Hume’s mistaking a cruelly oppressive heresy as orthodox Christianity.17 Allison asserts it was Hume’s reaction to reading the “Whole Duty of Man” that drove him from Christianity.
The key to understanding the difficult implications for every day living that spring out of these departures from Orthodox teachings lies in a simple question and an overarching truth. The question is “How am I saved?”, and the overarching truth is we, as human beings, become like that which we worship. The question is a matter of the study of salvation, the second a matter of fact. Allison observes that Irenaeus’s answers to the heresies of his day addressed them by asking the question “How are we saved? Allison states:
-
The key to Irenaeus’s teaching is its soteriological (study of salvation) focus: the purpose of Christianity is salvation, the restoration of humans to unity with God. All philosophical and religious speculation is merged into the single concern of scripture’s story of salvation. Irenaeus does not speculate on the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but contents himself with describing their functions in the Saving of humankind. His is one of the earliest theological expressions of the doctrine of the Trinity. 18
Two crucial affirmations mark the lasting contribution of Irenaeus. First, “The Son of God (has) become a son of man”; that is, the redemptive work of Christ depends fully on the identity of his humanity with our humanity. Second, “Jesus Christ, [is] true man and true God.” Our salvation depends upon the fact that “God was in Christ”, reconciling the world unto himself”(2 Cor 5 19). This high point of theology concerning Christ and his work (Christology) was not to be attained again until the Council of Chalcedon three centuries later.
God, being triune gives us our community and relational pattern of love. Christ in his human and divine natures reconciles God to man. Because Jesus is human he is able to pay the price for our redemption. He does not destroy his humanity or earn his divinity in his act of redemption. He does not flee from pain, physically or emotionally. He experienced what it is to be human in a fallen world and finds humanity worth paying the ultimate price for.
We become like that which we worship. This is an observable fact. Watch any sports mad young child imitate the best exponents of his chosen sport. His goal to be like his sporting hero is obvious and his admiration (worship) of his idol produces the sincerest form of flattery – imitation. C. FizSimons Allison observes: Since we tend to become like what we worship, and since we were created in the image of God, the commandment not to worship “any other gods but me” is not an expression of the jealousy of God for Gods sake, but for ours. To bow down before and to become like anything or anyone but God himself is ultimately for us to begin to be recreated in some other image.19
If we were to worship a God who knows nothing of being human, then it would of course follow that our lives would be spent trying to escape the “human condition”. If God was only spirit, then the spiritual would be our home and our body a trap. If Jesus was however only human, and not divine, and God saw he was perfect and so adopted him, our lives would be about split loyalties. Do we worship the separate entity Jesus, or God? Do we see in this relationship eternal love, or love for which one has to prove oneself worthy to be loved? As Allison observes, what sort of family would place such conditions of behaviour on children, making them earn their parents love. Sadly this is true in many families the fruits of which are self evident. God, however, is not seeking for humanity to prove itself to him. He extends love to all freely. Jesus lives in eternal relationship with His Father and the Holy Spirit, is fully human and fully divine. We worship a God that affirms and loves who we are, and promises good things to us by Grace. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit represent the perfect loving relationship, and Jesus the ultimate act of love.
The pastoral implications of Docetism and Adoptionism have been briefly touched on. Let us now look at how these heresies provide aid and comfort to despots and tyrants. The three philosophers who stand out in this matter in recent history are Hegel, Nietzsche and Schleiermacher.
In his book, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Terrell makes the following observation:
- Emerging out of this philosophical picture, grounded in Hegel and Nietzsche, was the recognition of he proposition that man is the measure of all things. It is virtually impossible to distinguish between God and man in these philosophies. With Hegel, the activity of man is the activity of God, whereas in Nietzsche the concept of God is thrown out altogether, with humanity emergent, at least in potentiality, as God.
However important the Hegelian deification of the State and Nietzsche’s attack on Christianity, another important element contributed greatly to the formation of the German religious attitudes that would leave the population intellectually and spiritually disarmed before the rise of Nazism. The central premise here is the subjectivity of truth, and the central figure is the philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1864)
As in Hegel and Nietzsche, Schleiermacher’s thought makes humanity the ultimate measure of spiritual truth. Because humans were thought to share a oneness with God through participation in the life of the spirit of the universe, inner sentiment was seen as a reliable guide to religious truth. Dogmatic matters, creeds, and the reliability of Scripture were peripheral elements for Schleiermacher, who is regarded by many as the “father” of modern liberal theology. Oddly, his principle concern was to defend Christianity in the face of the growing power of scepticism. He was concerned that the rationalist attacks on Christian faith by the philosophers of the European Enlightenment would destroy Christianity. Rather than seek premises and evidences with which to defend the historic faith, Schleiermacher chose to refashion Christianity itself so as to make it appealing to the “cultured despisers” of religion. He had, then, and apologetic intent – that of preserving Christianity against scepticism of the Enlightenment. His approach, however, was very strange. He replied to attacks upon Christian doctrinal understandings by saying, in essence, that doctrines and historical evidences were not important anyway, that what mattered was the inner spiritual consciousness of human beings, not the acts of God in history and the witness of Scripture. 20
Here Terrell bears witness to a resurrected form of Docetism. All that matters is the spiritual. The fruits of this departure from Orthodox Theology should be as well known as they were devastating. In an attempt to accommodate unbelief within Christendom Schleiermacher provided the Christian theological bricks that significantly contributed to the cultural foundations which allowed the rise of German despotism. Hitler set himself up as a deity. The Church, with notable exceptions, capitulated. Terrell states: The further away from biblical authority the church moved, the more vulnerable it was to the distortion which equated Christian faith with German culture. One can see the seeds of future tragedy in the thinking of prominent theologians of the early twentieth century. Having adopted the conclusions of the higher critics that there could be no “once for all” revelation, they opted for the Hegelian concept of salvation of historical processes, with that process now seen as raising up German culture as a redemptive principle for humanity.21 Germany was therefore spiritually bereft and ripe for the picking. Hitler and the Nazi partly obliged.
The importance of contending for the faith and the veracity of Christianity is well summed up by Rabbi Haberman: The suspension of the Bible's moral "barriers" made possible all the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, and other totalitarian rulers. It is no accident that the Soviet State and Hitler's Third Reich both identified the Bible and its teachers as primary enemies... Rosenburg was not mistaken in judging the Bible to be incompatible with Nazi philisopy. The Bible mandates a Supreme Law, to which all human creatures, even the Fuhrer, must submit...On the whole, the official clerical leadership of German Protestantism and Catholicism left a dismal record of compromise, submission and collaboration with the Nazi regime. Not so the members of the dissident Confessing Church...which following Karl Barth's staunch fidelity to Scriptural theology, felt impelled to reject "unscriptural" Nazi views." 22
Thus understanding why it is important to insist that God is a triune God, and why it is important to insist that Jesus is fully human and fully divine in nature is vital. To redefine Orthodoxy in an attempt to find more “sensible”, logical or acceptable forms of Christianity is to risk consequences that have been and still are, far reaching and potentially catastrophic. When mankind departs from the Orthodox position concerning how we view God, and the person of Jesus Christ, the resulting theological systems cause harm and produce confusion. Some encourage pride in those who have supposedly achieved spiritual perfection, and others provide theological and philosophical space for despots to rise and rule. Without understanding the foundations of our faith we are unable to recognise falsehood when presented to us as correct Christian doctrine. The self centred nature of human kind is a veritable factory of idols, ever given over to justifying our sinfulness and attempting to escape the pain that true love for mankind will cause. So as St Paul exhorted his young trainee Timothy, we must pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching, being ever vigilant to oppose that which is errant. Orthopraxy (right practice) springs only ever from Orthodoxy (right teaching/opinion).
Footnotes:
- R Richard Terrell, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Are We Ready for America’s Modern Fascism?, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana 70505), 21
- Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained, (Zonderdvan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1974), 41
- C. FitzSimons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy,© 1994 Morehouse Publishing. All rights reserved. Used by permission, 72
- Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Prologemena, Bibliology, Theology Proper, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 1976), 273
- Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Trinity, (http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs050m.pdf), 6
- C. FitzSimons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy,© 1994 Morehouse Publishing. All rights reserved. Used by permission, 72
- Ibid, 6
- Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Trinity,(http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs050m.pdf), 15
- Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained, (Zonderdvan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1974), 56-57
- Ibid, 56
- C. FitzSimons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy,© 1994 Morehouse Publishing. All rights reserved. Used by permission, 49
- Ibid
- Ibid, 101
- Ibid, 60
- Ibid, 112
- Ibid, 64
- Ibid, 126
- Ibid, 54
- Ibid, 71
- Richard Terrell, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Are We Ready for America’s Modern Fascism?, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana 70505), 33
- Ibid, 58
- Ibid, 208
Bibliography
- A New Zealand Prayer Book, (The Church of the Provence of New Zealand, Colins, 1989)
- C. FitzSimons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy,© 1994 Morehouse Publishing. All rights reserved. Used by permission
- Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, The Cost of Discipleship, (Touchstone, New York 1995)
- Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Major Bible Themes, 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained, (Zonderdvan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1974)
- Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Prologemena, Bibliology, Theology Proper, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 1976)
- Ibid, Volume Seven, Doctrinal Summarization
- Fruchtembaum, Arnold G., Jesus was a Jew, (Ariel Ministries Press, 1981)
- Fruchtenbaum, Dr. Arnold G., The Trinity, (Downloaded 1 March 2010 from: http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs050m.pdf), 6
- Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, Th. D, Ph. D, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition New International Version, (Moody Press Chicago, 1994)
- Strong’s Comprehensive Concordance of The Bible
- Terrell, Richard, Resurrecting the Third Reich, Are We Ready for America’s Modern Fascism?, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana 70505)
- Vincent, Marvin R., D.D, Vincent's Word Studies, (Covenant Parsonage, New York, October 30, 1886)