Another Non-theological post:

The country is very divided and the divide is again falling (mostly) along old regional lines. The North East will vote very differently in this election than will the Deep South. The divide is actually greater than it will seem because blacks in the South will vote almost exclusively democratic even though they, as a whole, are culturally very religious and differ with the Democrats on issues like abortion and gay rights.

We, in practical terms, no longer have a “federalist system.” Instead, we have a highly centralized form of Government. Washington makes policy on most issues for the whole country, but we are socially and culturally dissimilar in a number of ways because of regional and cultural differences.

Each region can not be satisfied with its own culture and let others be as they are. Folks in Washington speak of pluralism, but treat us as though we are “ONE” people by imposing its views across the spectrum on the whole land. It is not OK for Massachusetts to have abortion and gay marriage and Mississippi to outlaw these things. It is a "winner take all game," so each region and people must try to impose its own views on all others.

I think that is just as it is. I think a return to federalism is the only just way to keep the country together, but I am not optimistic that that could be done even if the there was the political will to do it (which there is not). It is interesting to note that the terms federal and confederacy were used interchangeably by the founders. This is clearly visible in their writings and you can see how the words are defined that way in, Founding Father and Federalist, Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

++++++++++++++++
FED’ERAL, a. [from L. faedus, a league, allied perhaps to Eng. wed. L. vas, vadis, vador, vadimonium. See Heb. to pledge.]
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
The Romans, contrary to federal right, compelled them to part with Sardinia.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
3. Friendly to the constitution of the United States. [See the Noun.]
FED’ERAL,
++++++++++++++++
CONFEDERACY, n. [L., a league. See Federal and Wed.]
1. A league, or covenant; a contract between two or more persons, bodies of men or states, combined in support of each other, in some act or enterprise; mutual engagement; federal compact.
The friendships of the world are oft confederacies in vice. A confederacy of princes to check innovation.
2. The persons, states or nations united by a league.
Virgil has a whole confederacy against him.
3. In law, a combination of two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.
++++++++++++++++

George Washington, in his letters refers to the United States under the, then new, Constitution as “our new confederacy.” The two great fears of most of the Federalists and Anti-federalists were dissolution of the Union on one side and the centralization of power in a national government on the other. The Federalists won the debate the Constitution was ratified and the warnings of the Anti-federalists (such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, James Monroe) have come to pass. The United States has ceased to be a federal republic. It is now the highly centralised national government that most of the Founding Fathers feared and worked very hard to prevent.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

This is a non-theological post:

On Politics

I am not overly concerned with the current elections. I believe that what ever way I vote, things will continue the current slide into the abyss (metaphorically speaking). I want to see the one who will do the least damage elected.

Personally, I like the Constitution Party, but I think they have made a serious mistake at running for president; without starting at the bottom and building up they will waste all their funds and never become a viable organisation. They need to start locally, in a few states (Western or Southern) and make a name for themselves first.

The Lord is in control and so what happens is as he has ordained, but we are to do our duty (i.e. vote), because that is the means that God has chosen to give us, in this sphere, to do His will. We live in a fallen world that is full of unregenerate men and women (both private and public), and because of that things here should be far worse than they are. As bad as thing seem at times, they could be (and may become) a great deal worse.

We as a people deserve a Saddam Hussien and God has been gracious to give us a Bill Clinton and a G.W. Bush. We deserve no better than the Russians received under Stalin, but God has been merciful to us and given us incompetent, rulers who only take 50% of our income. Most countries are in far worse shape than we are, because they have more consistent fallen rulers and more consistent fallen peoples.

If either Bush or Kerry is elected we will get more of the same. They will both try to federalise what little local control we have left, but in different ways, for different reasons and for different constituencies.

I do believe the left-wing segment of the democratic party is very dangerous. They are becoming desperate and remind me of the Revolutionaries in France’s 18th century blood bath, the Bolsheviks and the Brown Shirts. I see them as deadly enemies.

I think most of the Democrats are just so many politicians, and are not anywhere near that extreme. But the far-left wingers are more consistent and would deal with you and me in the same manner that their revolutionary predecessors in France, Russia and Germany dealt with folks like us– death or dungeon/terror and torture. I do think the extreme types are still far away from control and may never take control, but they are there.

As a whole the Republican party is not much better than the Dems, but I do believe they are somewhat better. With them you have a small "CHANCE" (30- 70) to get a decent federal judge nominated and appointed. With the Dems there ain’t a snowballs chance in hell of getting a good judge.

Again, I believe we get what we deserve (or better). I pray that we get better. I think we deserve the left-wing of the Dems, but I don’t think we will get them in either case.

The stakes are high, because both parties are sucking all power to D.C. The stakes will get higher and the two sides will get all the more desperate to gain or hold onto power. The national parties have centralised most power in Washington and that makes the power, perks and prestige very high and some men are willing to do unspeakable things to gain these things.

We are moving in the direction of Rome. We have not yet made it to the point where we have a Caesar and/or Pompey, but we are moving in that direction. I don’t see us turning from that path, but I do believe that there are both intolerable and (relatively) benign despotic governments. I am hoping and praying that the latter is the worst we get.

Now after that very glum picture let me look at things from a more optimistic vantage point. Christian today, and in the past, have lived under far worse conditions than we do. Most Christians in other parts of the world and in the past would see our condition as wonderful and so we need to keep things in perspective. We have great liberty to worship and live here. These things are slowly eroding but they will not be loss to us anytime soon, so we do have time. We need to use our time at the local level.

We Christians need to plan and live as though we are preparing the world for our great, great grandchildren to live in it. If we all believe that the Rapture will happen tomorrow, we will not plan and work, at all levels, as we should. I think this is the greatest damage inflicted on the Church by the error of Dispensationalism.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

I’m now reading the correspondence of St. Cyprian, the 3rd Century Bishop of Carthage, who was martyred in 258 because of his faith in Christ. As Bishop Cyprian experienced the heavy persecution of Rome during the reigns of Emperor Decius (249-251) and Emperor Valerian (253–260).

There are eighty-two letters in this series and I have read sixty of them. So far, I’ve found the epistles of Cyprian to be a joy to read. He was Bishop of Carthage during a time of intense persecution. One of the interesting things in his letters is his the discussion of the “lapsed.” These were Christians who, one way are another, compromised at some point during the persecution. How was the church supposed to deal with these people when others were being tortured, exiled and killed for the faith. Should the Church cast them off, or should it try to restore them, and if to restore them than how? It’s great stuff.

In Epistle LVIII Cyprian is responding to a letter from Fidus. Fidus believes that baptism of infants should not be performed until the child is eight days old. His reasons are that circumcision was not preformed until the eighth day, and since baptism replaces circumcision this too should be preformed on the eighth day as well.

This was discussed during a council of the church in North Africa and Cyprian wrote the response to Fidus. He wrote “you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.”

I found part of the reason Cyprian gives to be very interesting. He wrote “For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us… For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, "The Lord hath said to me that I should call no man common or unclean." ”

I found this explanation to be a very good one and thought I would pass it along.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

The Bible alone is the inerrant and infallible revelation of God to man. This doesn’t include the translations of Scriptures into English. All translations are the works of men and are fallible and contain some errors. We have some very good translations and they are very trustworthy, but this does not equate infallibility or inerrancy to them. Therefore it is legitimate to question and debate the meaning of certain Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words and how they are translated in our English Bibles. If our translations were infallible, as the Scriptures (original autographa) are then there would not (and could not) be any debate in such matters.

This is the reason we need Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic scholars in the Church. These scholars, like the translations are fallible and prone to make mistakes. They are not gifted with an infallible translation or interpretive ability, but they are very important to maintaining the truth.

Every person, be he a Christian or not, be he a wheat or a tare, brings his own biases, prejudices, preconceptions and misconceptions with him when he (she) picks up an English translation of the Scriptures to read and study. We are wholly unable to approach God’s Word devoid of error, prejudice, preconceptions or misconceptions. To do so we would have to live in a vacuum and be devoid of experience and thought, but even if this were possible it too would hinder our ability to correctly understand God’s Scriptures. The Scriptures were written in certain cultural settings and are addressing particular sins and situations. Lack of knowledge of these particulars will also lead one to err in his interpretation of God’s Word.

There is no way for us to have an inerrant knowledge of biblical doctrine, but this does not mean that we can not have true knowledge of the Scriptures and the Doctrines taught in them. We can have true knowledge of the truth of God’s Word, though we can not have an infallible understanding of biblical Doctrine. We all have errors in our understanding, but knowing this we can not become relativists. The Scriptures teach objective truth and they are not subjective or relative to any individual or culture.

If I and another Christian are debating a doctrinal issue there are, at most, only three possible options. One option is I am right and my brother is mistaken; another option is my brother is correct and I am in error. The third option is we are both mistaken and there are other possibilities. It is never the case that if I interpret something one way, and my brother interprets it another that we are both correct. This defies logic (X can never be the same as non-X). God’s Word is objective, inerrant and infallible truth, and it is wholly non-contradictory truth.

If something in God’s Word is interpreted one way by me, and at the same time it is interpreted in a completely contradictory way by another, than one of us (perhaps both) is surely wrong. To deny this is to deny objective truth. If we say that one thing can be true for you and not true for me then we affirm relativism and deny that the Bible contains objective truth. In doing so we deny truth itself. All is then relative and subjective, and there is no truth to be found. This is an irrational position that can not stand.

We all approach the Scriptures with in a given paradigm that is hard to escape. No person has ever commented on the Scriptures who has not imposed upon the Scriptures his or her own misconceptions and prejudices. No one can see his own error without much study and prayer, and none will ever completely escape this fact. We will all go to our graves with certain doctrinal errors and failings.

Doctrinal error has always existed in the Church and it always will. I believe this problem is compounded today, because of our atomistic, individualistic mind set. For most American Christians it is "ME" and "I" who’s view is most correct, even if it is totally divorced from a knowledge of the original languages, historic doctrinal understandings and Church history. Protestants rightly condemn the position of the RCC (since Vatican I) that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but we have practically made every individual a pope over doctrine. For the modern individual it is the all important "I" that determines what is doctrinal and what is not.

One of the great errors in both theology and philosophy throughout history has been the inability to bring together "the one and the many" (unity and diversity). This is true in Church history as well. At the end of the High Middle Ages Rome erred and made the "one" to be all important at the expense of the "many." All had to bow before the Roman Pontiff. Today we have enthroned the "many" and there is no one (unity). The "I" is all important. There is no unity because all "I" or "Me" pronouncements are sacred and beyond question. Church history, doctrinal history and all else be damned if it is in contradiction to what "I" believe the Bible to teach. There is no one (unity). There is no Church; there are only churches filled with multiple popes.

There will always be tension between the one and the many, just as there is tension between men and women in marriage. This tension between husband and wife is there because God made us to think differently and prioritize things differently. God did this for a reason. The same is true with the pull of the one and the many. God has built this tension into the system. To go completely over to the "one" is to fall in a ditch (which I think Rome did at Vatican I), but modern Protestants have, for the most part, gone to the other extreme (the many). They too are in a ditch.

Throughout most of Church history the church has swayed back and forth, usually avoiding the extremes of either ditch. I believe today Rome is in one ditch, and the Protestants are in the other. Both of us are in ditches and we need to crawl out of them. We need to get back on the path and out of the ditch. The study of the Scriptures in light of Church history and the history of Doctrine is a good place to start. We need to escape our own paradigm. This is hard to do. We can only do this by reading Christians from earlier eras. We need to read the ancient writings of the Fathers, the mediaeval saints, the Reformers and counter-Reformers, etc... They all err at some point, but they err at different points than we do today. The can help us see our own errors.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Polygamy and Wine

Some time back an anti-alcohol Baptist acquaintance of mine argued that wine is like polygamy. He said they are both something allowed by God in the Old Testament, but they are items that are no longer applicable for us today. He commented that "We don't live in Israel; we live in America." This person believed that the analogy he made between ancient Israel and modern America is a valid analogy on the subject of wine and polygamy. I believe his inference is not a legitimate one, and it shows, on his part, a lack of biblical understanding on both polygamy and wine.

Let’s begin at the beginning. At the end of the creation God ordained monogamy one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve). We were created to be monogamous from the start. In Genesis we read "The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed" (Gen 2: 21-25). Notice, in the whole account of the creation of Eve in the Bible is oriented toward monogamy. Man it to cleave to his wife (singular) the two become one flesh (its impossible for three or more to be one flesh). The first account of bigamy (2 wives) in Scripture is found in the line of Cain’s decedents — Lemach. Lemach was fifth in the line of Cain. It is very likely he is the first bigamist in all history, because the Scriptures makes such a point about it.

We know the pagan people in Abraham’s day practised polygamy. Remember Pharaoh tried to take Sarah for his harem. Abraham too becomes a bigamist when he doubts God’s Word and takes Hagar as a concubine to help God do what He had promised. This, as is every case of polygamy or bigamy that the Scriptures give details about, was a family disaster. Because of Sarah’s jealousy (and his weakness), Abraham casts his own son, Ishmael, and Hagar out in to the wilderness. The implications of Abraham’s sin of bigamy are still felt today. The Arabs count Ishmael as their father and the Jews count Isaac. The animosity that existed in Abraham’s tent between Sarah and Hagar and their sons (who were half brothers) still exists today, some 4,000 years later.

If you do a study on bigamy and polygamy in the Scriptures you will find that, in every case were we are given information, such multi-partner marriages are a disaster. In those cases the wives despise one another and most times so do the children. If you don’t want to go through the whole Bible than just take look at the families of Jacob and David (just two polygamist in the Bible). Their polygamy lead to violent sibling rivalries—kidnapping, rape, murder, rebellion are all linked to these families because these two men had multiple wives.

The Kings of Israel were, by God’s law, to have only one wife. The same is true of those who are ordained officers (elders/bishops and deacons) in the Church of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament God does regulate polygamy. In this since polygamy is comparable to slavery. It is an evil that God regulated, but did not altogether outlaw. Just as we should not desire to be a slave, neither should we desire to be involved in polygamy. Like slavery it is never recommended to man, and the Scriptures seem to go out of their way to accentuate the destruction that such relationships naturally carry in their wake for those families where it was practiced.

Much more can be written on this topic, but I do believe that above is a fair presentation of the Scriptural view.

When we go to the subject of wine we find the Scripture are very clear. The misuses of wine (i.e. drunkedness) is strongly and constantly condemned in both the Old and New Covenant Scriptures. But in numerous places in the Bible God clearly blesses (even commands) the use of wine and strong drink. Wine (and other alcoholic beverages) is a good gift to us from God. When used rightly, as are all God’s good gifts, wine is clearly proclaimed to be a blessing from the Lord.

Love, sex, food, wealth, health etc… are all very good gifts from God that sinful man distorts and through sin pervert and the distortion of these good gifts are all very ugly things. But this does not mean that these gifts are not good after all. The gifts from God remain very good gifts and true blessings to God’s people.

Wine is the same. It is a good gift when used lawfully. God has made this obviously clear throughout the Scriptures. When used unlawfully, wine, like the abuse of the gifts mentioned above, can be very destructive. Still that is the fault of the sinner and is not to be blamed on God’s gift, because to do so is to impugn God.

Wine is a good gift from God and to deny this is to claim greater wisdom than God who gave and blessed the gift.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

The Pledge

Three times in my life I have raised my right hand and taken an oath to serve this country in her armed forces. The first time was at the age of eighteen when I joined the United States Navy, next was to serve as a member of the Louisiana Army National Guard and the last time for the Navy Reserves.

This is the oath I took "I, [my name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I meant those words when I said them. I was proud to take this oath then and I would do so again today if I were needed to. I am sure most Americans would do the same. I believe every American should be willing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" even if it means loosing ones own life in that struggle.

I dearly love the Constitution of these United States. I’ve read it many times. Sadly most Americans have failed to read our nations covenant document even once. I especially love reading the often heated debates which the Founding Fathers had over the Constitution’s ratification. These men on, whichever side they took, were passionate about it. The ratification debates are a wonderful treasure and if you want to know what the Founders actually meant in this great document you must read their debates about it.

Now I wish to write about a popular oath that I cannot recite with a clear conscience. It has been news lately and we all know this oath very well. It is called the Pledge of Allegiance. Someone reading this maybe asking him or herself "How can he proudly take the first oath and not repeat the pledge?"

I think I have a very sound constitutional reason for my position. In the first oath I am pledging to defend something that is well defined and has clear limits. It is a patriotic oath to defend the system of government handed down to us by our forebears. It is an oath to defend ideas.

The pledge to the flag is very different. First the original author of the pledge, Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), was a socialist. This fact alone should give us some hesitation. Next there are points in the pledge that are not historically accurate. The United States was not founded as a single nation state, but as a federated republic of states (nations). The founders did not create the union to be indivisible. In fact eleven states did legally divide themselves from the union but were forcibly reattached to the union by the point of a bayonet after the bloodiest war in our history.

But those reasons are minor and are not the main reason why I can’t say the pledge. The main reason I can not in good conscience say the Pledge of Allegiance is the pledge is a nationalist pledge. It is not a statement of patriotism, though it is often confused with patriotism, but an oath to follow the flag wherever it goes for what ever reason. That is nationalism and not patriotism.

There is a famous toast from 1816 by a young naval officer named Stephen Decatur that epitomizes what I mean by nationalism as opposed to patriotism. Decatur said "To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!" His loyalty was first to the nation even if she is wrong. That is not a Christian concept.

John Quincy Adams responded to the words of Decatur this way. He said "I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the papers attributed to one of our gallant naval heroes. I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right." [The Latin phrase translates this way "Let justice be done though heaven should fall" - anonymous, circa 43 B.C.]

The only entity deserving of our unquestioned loyalty is God. If our nation seeks to do evil then it is our duty to God and country to stand against the evil. Meanings ascribed to a flag can change and does change. Our allegiance to symbols may have to change as well, but our loyalty to the triune God of the Bible.

The oath I took to defend the Constitution is clear. It is not an unquestioned oath to a symbol, but an oath to an idea that is clearly stated. Lawyers and others have done a great deal to muddle the meaning of those words, but you and I can read them and the writings and speeches of the men who ratified them. We can know what they meant and what it means.

Nationalism is a very dangerous thing. It can be used far great evil so it is important that we never give blind allegiance to an earthly government.

Patriotism is noble and good and it is kin to familial loyalty. Christians especially need to be able to understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism. The difference is vast and the Pledge of Allegiance is, like it or not a nationalist pledge.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

The Real Sola Scriptura

Today, after venturing off on a number of essays, articles and books quoted by Mathison work, I finally finished reading The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. It is a truly great read.

This is the most important book that I have read in a least five years, and very likely a number of years more than that. Mathison’s book is vital for the Christian today. Most importantly, to my mind, Mathison places the classical Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura in an historical context, that is vital to a right understanding of it. Just as importantly, He contrasts the classical Protestant teaching of "Sola Scriptura " with the truncated modern evangelical distortion that passes as "sola scriptura" in the minds of most Evangelicals today. The modern position is a far cry from the historic view of the Reformers.

On page 280 Mathison writes “How can we proclaim the perspicuity [i.e. clearness] of Scripture and at the same time promote doctrines that no one in the Church ever taught for eighteen or nineteen centuries? Evangelicals criticize Roman Catholics for the creation of new dogmas unheard of in previous centuries, yet Evangelicalism has created far more novel doctrines than Roman Catholicism.” The Evangelical criticism is valid, but hypocritical, when Evangelicals too are doing similar things; the invention of dispensationalism in the 1820's and it’s subsequent wide acceptance by evangelicals in the 20th century is a case in point.

I believe his dealing with the modern evangelical distortion of sola scriptura to be one of the most important aspects of this book, because the view that has gained the majority position in evangelical circles is a far cry from the Sola Scriptura that was taught by the Reformers and it is very dangerous.

The modern distortion that passes for Sola Scriptura is radically individualistic and takes place in an historical, theological and doctrinal vacuum. This view of Scripture makes biblical doctrine to be highly subjective, relativistic, and in so doing it virtually makes each individual to be his/her own Pope who infallibly interprets the Scriptures in his or her own subjective vacuum.

In the book Mathison also deals masterfully with the Roman Catholic views of Scripture and tradition. He points out that the view of the Protestant Reformers (the classical Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura) clearly harkens back to the view of tradition and Scripture that was held by early Church and most of the Church during the early Middle Ages. This is plainly seen in St. Vincent’s Commonitory , which I wrote about earlier.

Mathison also sets his sites on the Eastern Church's views in this book as well, and handles their arguments handily.

I can not recommend this important book to strongly.

Dominus Vobiscum.
Kenith

How many New Covenants?

We are blessed to be partakers of the New Covenant that was promised long ago through the prophet Jeremiah. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah."

The Prophet said that the New Covenant would be with the houses of Israel and Judah, but you and I, like most Christians since the end of the apostolic era, are more likely Gentile extraction. How can it be that the overwhelming majority of those that have been the recipients of the New Covenant promise made to Israel and Judah are Gentiles and not Ethnic Jews.

Before I attempt to answer that question I should mention the fact that old-line dispensational theology denies that we Christians are part of the New Covenant promised by Jeremiah, because if we are than their theological system implodes on itself. The founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), Lewis Sperry Chafer, says in his eight volumes Systematic Theology that there are two New Covenants: one with Israel, and also another New Covenant, not even hinted of in the Old Testament, that is with the Church (Vol. IV, 325 and Vol. VII, 98,99).

Chafer is not alone in this view. It is part and parcel of dispensational thought. John Walvoord, the president of DTS after Chafer, held to the two new covenants view, as does Dwight Pentecost. Pentecost wrote of his dispensational view "This view holds that there are two new covenants presented in the New Testament; the first with Israel in reaffirmation of the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 and the second made with the church in this age."

I have mentioned elsewhere (before blogging) that dispensationalists must deny that the church fulfills Jeremiah 31. If Jeremiah 31, in anyway, applies to Christians and the church, the whole dispensational system of biblical interpretation collapses. This is something that they readily admit. Former DTS theologian Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote, "If the church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned." Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost said of the New Covenant "If the church fulfils this covenant, she may also fulfil the other covenants, and there is no need for an earthly millennium." (both men are premillennialist, as is every dispensationalist.) Again, as I have said before they believe as did Darby, Scofield and Chafer that the Church age is a parenthesis in redemptive history and the real new covenant is yet future in a future millennium.

This view of two new covenants is based not on a reading of Scripture, because the Bible no where speaks of two new covenants. The idea of two new covenants becomes a necessity for dispensationalism, due to the fact that in the New Testament the new covenant is clearly applied to the Church. Historic dispenstional thought maintains (since its invention by John Darby in the 1820’s) that no prophecies in the Old Testament can apply to the church, because the OT Scriptures give no hint of the church age. They maintain that the Church is only a "parenthesis" in God’s plan for Israel.

Jeremiah 31:31, if it applies to the church, destroys their system. The system is predicated on the idea that all prophecy must be interpreted literally. The fact that Jeremiah says the new covenant is made with the houses of Israel and Judah, must be understood literally, and therefore it can not be applied to the church. When John Darby devised this idea, it was a radical departure from how all of Christendom had understood Jeremiah 31 for the previous 1800 years. The church had always understood the New Covenant promises in Jeremiah 31 to apply to us Christians (Jews and Gentiles) and not to a future millennial Israel.

The basic hermeneutic for the dispensationalists is the belief that all prophetic Scripture must be interpreted literally. This view is imposed on the Word of God and not drawn from it. Certainly the Bible is clear that some prophecies had to be interpreted literally, but I believe I can indicate that this is not true of all prophecy. Some of it is clearly not to be understood literally. If this is indeed the case then the dispensational hermeneutic fails completely.

I believe the way the New Testament writers deal with the new covenant is enough to discredit the dispensational position, but since that is a point in question here, we will look elsewhere to see if prophecy is ever fulfilled in a non-literal way. Ryrie makes the point "Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture."

In Malachi 4.5,6 we read that Elijah (Elias) would come before Messiah. The angel references this prophecy when he speaks to Zacharias (John’s father) in the temple. "And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1.17).

In Matthew Jesus says plainly that John the baptiser is the fulfilment of the Elijah prophecy: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come."(Matt. 11.13,14) Jesus confirms John’s fulfilment of the Elijah passages elsewhere. Lets look at Matthew chapter 17. "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (10-13)

We see this also in Mark 9.11-13. "And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him."

Malachi said clearly that Elijah would come before Messiah. The scribes and Pharisees, like our despensational brethren took this prophecy very literally. That is why they asked John if he was indeed Elijah (see John 1:21). John was not literally Elijah, and he told his questioners as much. Yet Jesus tells us in several places that John is the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecy of Elijah coming as a forerunner to the advent of the Messiah.

The prophecy of Malachi is clearly fulfilled in John the Baptist, but it is not a literal fulfilment. John is not a reincarnation of Elijah, but he is the fulfilment of this prophecy, because he came in the spirit and power of Elijah.

Dispensationalism is wrong when it imposes a literalism where the Bible does not. The Scriptures must be allowed to interpret themselves. John, according to Christ, fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah. According to the New Testament, we in the Church, are in the New Covenant. The Church is the house of Israel and Judah, spoken of by Jeremiah. We are now in the New Covenant, and there is only one not two New Covenants as Chafer and other Dispensationalists were forced to argue for in order maintain their system. The idea of two New Covenants is not biblical and neither is dispensationalism.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

a spirit hath not flesh and bones

A little while back, a fellow on another forum objected to a comment I made about God being a spirit and not possessing a physical body. Here is my response to his suggestion that God must be a physical being.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello BL,
We have a very different views on this matter, and just to put this is context, your view appears to be that of a Mormon are something close to the Mormon position. The view I hold to on this matter is the view held by the whole Christian church from beginning until now. This is also the historic doctrinal view of Judaism. This is clearly seen in Article 3 of the Shloshah-Asar Ikkarim also known as the Thirteen Articles of Faith.

Article 3 reads this way --“The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling” or in a more modern wording “I believe with complete faith that the Creator, Blessed is His Name is not physical and is not affected by physical phenomena, and that there is no comparison whatsoever to Him.”

Of course all the Jews and Christians could have been mistaken and Joseph Smith and you are correct, but I would not bet the farm on those odds.

One verse can be all the proof one needs if it is used rightly and contextually, and hundreds of proof texts can be used to teach a distortion if applied wrongly, so the number of verses one can bring into play in such a discussion may or may not be that important. Jewish and Christians scholars (and laymen alike) have always recognised that the Bible is a complicated book. Some of it is history, some is song and poetry, some is proverbial, prophetic, some portions are eschatological, and some is specifically philosophical and doctrinal. Some parts of the Bible are very literal and others are not. Those aspect of the scriptures that you bring up to prove that God is a physical being have always, by Jews and Christians alike, been understood to be anthropomorphic language used to make certain points.

Your methodology of interpreting Scripture proves too much. Not only must God have eyes, nostrils hands and legs, but he must have wings and feathers as well.

Lets return to the verses that I brought up earlier in this discussion. "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39) And then Christ words in John 4:24 “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." We know from Jesus Christ’s words here that a spirit “hath not flesh and bones” and we know that “God is a Spirit.”

BL you said that “Spiritual substance is as real as natural substance Ken, except that it is of a higher type of matter and is governed by higher laws.” (emphasis is my own). This is absolute, pure conjecture that has been pulled out of thin air.

The word spirit is also the word used for wind, and breath in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Wind was the closest thing that could be used to describe that which is non-material. Even here with this analogy we find spirit or wind that is at times omnipresent and sometimes particular. Wind is everywhere like God and it can be particular, like and individual. We see this in its uses as the breath of an individual.

When a man gives up his spirit, does a higher form of matter leave his physical body and go to heaven or hell? No; a non-material, eternal aspect of his being is separated from the material aspect of his being.

Let’s look at another term used in Scripture. That is the word “Word” or “Logos” which is used in speaking of the pre-incarnate Christ. John, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, uses this Greek term that is pregnant with meaning when referring to the pre-incarnate Christ for a reason. He uses it because it is familiar to the Greek world to which he is writing. In Greek thought the logos was a divine force, power or reason that governed the universe, but it too was non-material.

In fact a great problem of early Christians was fighting off the opposite of the heresy you espouse here. In neo-Platonic thought the non-material (spirit) was good and all things material (flesh) were tainted with evil. The Gnostics held to a heresy that Christ must have only appeared to be flesh and bone, because he could not truly be flesh and bone (a material being) because this was evil. The object of the Gnostics was to leave the material world, and return to the realm of pure spirit.

BL yours is a simplistic reading of the Word of God that ignores very important teachings in the Scriptures and it ignores the whole teaching of both the Jewish and Christian peoples who received these revelations.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

St. Vincent, Sola Scriptura and Tradition

I’ve been reading Keith Mathison’s book The Shape of Sola Scriptura and I’ve so far found it very interesting and compelling. After reading a little over 100 pages into this work I took a detour. In the body of this book Mathison quotes Vincent of Lérins. St. Vincent is a contemporary of St. Augustine. Vincent joined the monestary in Lérins in 425 and died in 450 AD.

St. Vincent wrote an important epistle titled The Commonitory: For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies. The title is a mouth full, but it is a delightful read.

I set Mathison’s book aside because I believed a quote that he used from The Commonitory to be so important that I wanted to be sure that Mathison was dealing accurately with what St. Vincent actually wrote. After reading the whole of Vincent’s epistle, I am sure that Mathison uses him correctly, and he could have quoted him a good bit more.

It becomes clear that Vincent holds to a very different understanding of the relationship between Scripture and tradition than that of the Modern Roman Catholic Church. It is all clear that he believes that one should not lightly dismiss the historic teachings of the faith, which I believe is an all too common problem among modern Evangelicals who have little knowledge of, or interest in, the history of doctrine or the church itself.

Mathison’s quote that caused me to set his book down and read The Commonitory is taken from Chapter II. St. Vincent wrote “That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.”

That sounds like the conventional Roman Catholic position, but Vincent is not finished. He then defines what he means by this statement. He says “But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?”

It is important to notice two things here. First, St Vincent clearly believes that “the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient.” This is a very high view of the Bible and one that every Evangelical would heartily agree with, but look at what he adds. He asks “what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation.”

St. Vincent, in this passage, equates tradition with the historic interpretation of the Scriptures. This is not what the modern Roman Catholic (RC) means by tradition. The Modern RC, when he speaks of tradition, is referring to a body of beliefs that exist extra-biblically.

St Vincent’s position on tradition would match perfectly with the classical Protestant position on the matter, and is in stark conflict with the modern RC view and from another angle it is at odds with most (baptistic) Evangelicals as well.

We see Vincent’s position reiterated a number of times in the thirty three chapters of this work. In referring to the errors of Origen he writes “Hence it came to pass, that this Origen, such and so great as he was, wantonly abusing the grace of God, rashly following the bent of his own genius, and placing overmuch confidence in himself, making light account of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, presuming that he knew more than all the world besides, despising the traditions of the Church and the determinations of the ancients, and interpreting certain passages of Scripture in a novel way, deserved for himself the warning given to the Church of God, as applicable in his case as in that of others.”

In the body of the epistle it’s clear that St. Vincent believes Origen erred when he abandoned the traditional interpretation of Scripture and followed his own ideas. Origen’s errors, according to St Vincent, were that he thought too much like a modern Evangelical.

In chapter XXVII St. Vincent reinforces what he said in chapter II. He writes “in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.” He even goes so far as to say that “as to the more ancient schisms or heresies, we ought either to confute them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures, or at any rate, to shun them…”

In chapter XXIX St. Vincent affirms that Scripture alone is, in and of itself sufficient, but then reaffirms the importance of looking at Scripture in the light shed on it by the historic teachings of the Church. Here are his own words “it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church's belief,”

Notice that St. Vincent here admits that the canon (i.e. the Holy Bible) will, on its own “suffice for every question.” That is not the modern RC position, but it is something that Evangelicals would readily agree with. We flip flop this situation when we look at what he next says. He writes “it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church's belief.” This is where the modern RC and the Evangelical will switch places. The Evangelical will disagree and the RC will agree. But the classical Protestant would agree with both statements.

The Commonitory of St. Vincent is a wonderful work and sheds light on a number of important items that are not addressed here. After reading it I am now ready to return to Mathison’s book. It is proving to be a very good and very important book indeed.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Substitutionary Atonement

Our Lord God is and always has been a gracious Lord. Even before the fall God’s relationship with man was a gracious relationship. God could have placed Adam and Eve in a wilderness, where they would have had to struggle from the beginning . Instead, Adam and Eve were placed in a garden that was able to supply all their needs. They were placed in the midst of plenty, and they were given the job of keeping the garden, but the garden was such that even this work was not hard or strenuous labour.

Some people believe that Adam could have earned salvation for him and for us had he perfectly kept God’s Word. But this is not correct; even had Adam perfectly kept God’s word God would have owed him nothing, because perfectly keeping His Law Word was Adam’s duty. His works could not then, it can not now, nor could it ever have earned eternal life. Had Adam not sinned he would have lived forever, but he would not have earned that life, it would still have been of grace and not something aquired by works. Eternal life is all of grace and it always has been.

We can see the out working of God’s grace immediately after the fall. God had told Adam "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2:17) But this did not happen; Adam and Eve did not die, instead God killed animals and he clothed the sinners in the skins of the animals that were substituted for them.

The guilty did not die when Adam and Eve sinned. Innocent animals died in their stead, and then God covered the nakedness of the guilty party (i.e. Adam and Eve) with the skins of the animals that died in their place. Right here in the first chapters of Genesis we see the shadow of the reality of redemption that is accomplished for us in Christ Jesus.

We, like Adam and Eve, are guilty of sinning against the Lord. We, like Adam and Eve, are deserving of the wages of our sin, which is death. We see the pattern of substitutionary atonement throughout the Old Testament. This is seen in the bloody animal sacrifices that fill the pages of the Old Covenant Scriptures. Like the animals that died in the place of Adam and Eve, all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were but shadows that pointed to the true Sacrifice for our sins.

The sacrifice of animals can not ultimately redeem us from our sins; they can only point to the true Redeemer. We see this clearly taught in Hebrews chapter nine. All those countless animal sacrifices, over several millennia, pointed to the true Sacrifice which is Jesus Christ. Because of sin someone had to die. God’s holiness and justice demanded it, but yet God’s grace allowed for a substitute. Either the sinner or the substitute had to pay the penalty for sin. We see this too in Hebrew 9. We are told that without the shedding of blood there is no remission from sin.

Jesus came to fulfill the justice of God. In Him God the Son entered His creation. The Lord became flesh and blood. He kept His own Law Word and He gave himself to pay the penalty for the sins of all that will receive eternal life. Again in Hebrews 9 we read "he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Jesus atoned for our sins and like the animal skins that covered Adam and Eve, our nakedness is covered by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

Suffering

Suffering is a fact of life. We all endure suffering to some degree, because we live in a fallen and sinful world. We live in a world filled with people in rebellion against their own creator God, who made them in his very own image (Note: The image is not physical).

Suffering is a byproduct of sin. Because of Adams fall the whole creation was corrupted and came under the curse of sin. Suffering because of labour to produce food and suffering of the mother during child birth are products of the sin of the fall. We sin and suffering is produced. Most of our suffering can not be tied down to any specific sin. I won’t twist my ankle for telling a white lie, nor will I break my arm for telling a bigger lie. God didn't make this world that simplisticly. In fact, God created a very intricate and complicated world. This is true of nature and it is true of the world of human lives and relations. It is true socially, morally, culturally, etc...

In this sinful world, good and bad suffer alike. Sometimes whole lands and cultures are swept out of existence and millions of people suffer having no idea why they are suffering. I often think of World War II when I think of suffering. Over 50,000,000 (50 million) people were killed in that war, and more than halve of those killed during that war were civilians. Over 27,000,000 (27 million) civilians, including women, children, babies and old folks, were killed even though they were not combatants.

Many times times more people than these were displaced, lost homes and families during the war. World War II was a tidal wave of death, destruction and human suffering that was far greater than anything that had been seen before in human history. Millions of people were swept to their deaths by powers, forces and events that they could not possibly understand much less control.

World War II was made almost inevitable due to the way the second most destructive war in history (i.e. World War I) ended. Events were set in motion by the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the First World War. The outcome of this treaty set forces the stage which ultimately led to the WWII. Only a small handful of men had anything to do with generating that treaty. Very few, of the more than 50 million men, women and children killed in WWII had anything to do with Treaty of Versailles, yet these many millions of people were swept up and destroyed by its consequence.

Many of those killed, during that bloodiest of all wars, were very devout Christian people. The ten Boom family was one group of Christians who were swept up and killed in that titanic war. The ten Booms were Reformed Dutch Christians. They were arrested and sent to death camps for the crime of saving Jews from the Nazis' planned extermination of European Jews. Like the ten Booms countless numbers of Christians underwent great suffering and often painful death during WWII, many others helplessly watched as their love ones suffered and died around them.

Now let me fast forward for a moment. I am certain there were a number of good Christian people killed in the planes, Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9-11. Why did innocent people die on 9-11? Why did the ten Booms and so many other civilians have to die in WWII?

Did WWII take God by surprise? No; God knows all things in history from eternity, not only that, but he has ordained all that comes to pass in this world. The suffering of the ten Booms was ordained by the Lord before the creation. It is probable that we will never know all there is to know about the "whys" of suffering. But we can know that all these things are in God’s hands. He is able to , and does, turn all sins that are committed in such a way that they must accomplish the Lord’s Holy will.

How is this done? I don't know. God is God and He has told us in His Scriptures that it is so. “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28) God has not given us specifics on how this is so, but we know it is so from God’s Word. That is a great comfort when we are undergoing suffering. We can have comfort even while we are in pain and undergoing great struggles, even struggles that lead to death for ourselves or our loveones.

Because God is sovereign, the Christian can take comfort in the fact that ultimatly none of our suffering is meaningless.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

What about Mary?

Below is a letter I wrote last year on the Virgin Mary. My friend Toney forwarded the short article to his friend Terry who sent it on to Father Champagne (of the Dioceses of Lafayette). Father Champagne then responded to the article. The letter below that of Father Champagne’s is my attempt to answer his criticisms.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith
************************************

Hey Folks,

I've not written much lately. I have been in a bit of a lull in my emailing, but I hope to be back at full speed again before to long.

We just finished up celebrating the Christmas Season. We used this period as a time set aside to feast and celebrate the marvellous, miraculous, virgin birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe this is good. God, in the Old Covenant, set aside many feast times for His people. We have a far greater blessings now than they did, because we live in the New Covenant. Therefore we too should have great feasts set aside to give praise to our God and Saviour and enjoy His blessings and bounty that He has given to us.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, stands out prominently during Christmas. Non-Catholics often do not give Mary the honour that she rightly deserves. I believe this is mainly do to an over reaction to a perceived too great a prominence given to Mary by Roman Catholics.

Luke records these words which were spoken to Mary by the angel Gabriel "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Elisabeth, her cousin, (who was also the mother of John the Baptist) when she was filled with the Holy Ghost, said "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Mary says in here response "from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

All Christians should recognise that Mary is the most blessed woman ever to walk upon the earth. She was privileged to carry in her womb for nine months the incarnate deity. She was the woman who raised Jesus; she nursed him on her breasts. Mary is the most blessed of all women. All generations, to the end of time, should honour her.

Now we come to a problem. Who was Mary? Was she sinless or did she, like all of us, need a Saviour? Is Mary an eternal virgin, or did she have normal sexual relations with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born?
I think the Scriptures answer these questions for us.

Was Mary without sin or did she need a Saviour? --- Mary answers the question for us in Luke 1:46,47. She says, "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Mary understood her need for a saviour. She was a sinner because sinless people don't need a saviour. Mary, like you and me, was in need of a saviour, and her Saviour is her Son Jesus Christ.

What about her virginity, is it eternal? Again we find the answer in the Word of God.

Remember what Mary said to Gabriel when he told her that she would have a son? She said "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The words "KNOW" and "KNEW" were common Hebraic idioms for sexual intercourse. We see these words used throughout the Scriptures as euphemisms for sexual intercourse. Here is an example.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Gen. 4:1)

We read in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." The implication being that Joseph did not "know" Mary (in a sexual way) until after Jesus was born. We see in Mark's Gospel (and elsewhere) that Jesus had siblings. We read "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" It is obvious in God's Word that Jesus had several half brothers and sisters.

If we allow the Scriptures to speak, it becomes clear that Mary is certainly the most blessed and honoured woman to ever tread upon the earth, but it is also clear that she was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus and she had many other children besides him.

I believe most Protestants don't give Mary enough honour, and most Roman Catholics give her more than the Scriptures will allow.

We must seek to follow the Word of God as it is presented in the Scriptures. As one baptised and raised, for a time, in the Roman Catholic Church, I love Christian tradition and I think most Protestants have jettisoned far too much tradition, but if (or when) tradition is counter to Scripture then we must follow Scripture. In matters of doctrine I agree with the Reformers and their cry "Sola Scriptura."

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith
************************************************************

Kenny,
I forwarded your email about Mary to a good Roman friend of mine. I asked for his thoughts on the matter and he evidently thought his priest could do a better job explaining the Roman position. I don't agree of course but was impressed with his explanation using John the Baptist as an example. What do you think of this reply?

Toney
***********
Tony,
These are a few thoughts that a Priest friend of mine sent concerning your email. I hope this will be of some assistance to you.

God Bless You,
Terry
*************
Terry:

Grace and Peace! I hope you, the wife and the boys are all doing well and growing in the Lord.

I received a copy of the E-mail sent by a friend of yours. I wish I had more time to address his erroneous arguments step by step. It would be quite easy to pick up Fr. Mario's "Unabridged Christianity" or one of Peter Kreeft's works to address the questions. However, his problems with Mary's Virginity after giving birth to Christ arise given the ambiguity in the English translation. For example, what St. Paul says of James, "the brother of the Lord" is actually "adelphos tou kuriou" which can be either a blood brother or a relative. In fact the two James in the apostolic college are James son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus. So if we are speaking about one of these being the same James then the interpretation must be relative and not blood brother. Catholics have the advantage of Tradition and from the earliest days Mary is taught to be ever virgin. For example, the Confiteor which dates to the 6th century invokes Mary, Ever Virgin. However, you can't argue with those who hold "Sola Scriptura" for they will consider nothing but the Sacred Text. However, they have the big problem of trying to defend Sola Scriptura, for I ask them where does it say "Scripture Alone" in the Bible. The fact is, it doesn't. We don't have the Bible (a collection of Books) until about the middle of the third century and the codices that we have then differ in the number and books included in the New Testament. There was not agreement in both the east and the west on this until late in the fourth century. It was the Catholic Church that determined which books went into the Bible and which were left out.

The text in Matthew 1:25 that says that Joseph had no relations with Mary until the time of her delivery again doesn't imply that they had relations after she gave birth. The greek conjunction heos can be legitimately translated as "till" or "until" but it does not restrict the continuance of the action beyond the time indicated. The context of Matthew is obviously concerned with the Virgin Birth and St. Matthew is not trying to clearly declare Mary's continued virginity after birth but his point that he is arguing is the Child is Divine. So from the Greek alone, we wouldn't know from Matthew's text whether or not Mary remained Virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Implying that she did is a Protestant reading into the text. If they claim to be Sola Scriptura, then the only honest position would be to say we don't know. However, we do as we have Sacred Tradition, the Oral Tradition, to clarify what is unclear or only present in germ in the Scriptures.

The final point about Mary calling Jesus Savior is a good one. Jesus is Lord and Savior of all. Catholics believe that Mary was most perfectly redeemed. She is saved, as Blessed Duns Scotus said, not by falling into the pit and being pulled out of it like the rest of us, but by a singular graced of being kept from falling into the pit at all. Mary is full of grace which means that she is sinless and redeemed. Mary is privileged to be saved from the first moment of her conception in St. Anne's womb whereas we have to wait for Baptism as a youngster or as an adult. The fact that Mary was preserved from all sin from the first moment of her existence should not surprise the Protestants as even St. John the Baptist, who no one would argue to be greater than the Virgin Mary, was consecrated, baptized, redeemed in the womb of Elizabeth at the Visitation. Finally, theologically it is fitting that Mary be without sin and its stain as the humanity of Jesus comes from her and it would not be fitting the sinless Redeemer that his humanity be stained with sin.

I hope these reflections offer some help.
In Jesus Crucified,
fr. champagne
****************************

Toney,

Thanks for sending the response from Father Champagne. I hope to write and thank him myself when I have time.

Father Champagne's letter is the standard Roman Catholic answer when this subject comes up and mine is the standard Protestant/Reformed view. Their position and our position have remained the same for the past 500 years.

What he says could be "a" correct rendition but it is not "the" natural reading of the texts in question. Father Champagne wrote that the Greek word adelphos ("can be either a blood brother or a relative" and he is certainly correct. But the natural reading of the text would not lend itself as readily to the latter as it does the former. We use the English term "brother" in narrow and broad ways as well, but context must determine how we understand the word in a particular setting.

Let's look at how Matthew uses this word "adelphos" elsewhere in his Gospel.

Matt 1:2 -- Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren (NOTE: Same Greek word.)

Matt 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon (NOTE: Same Greek word for Brethren.)

Matt 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. (NOTE: Same Greek word for brethren and brother.)

Matt 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. (NOTE: Same Greek word for Brethren)

Matthew does use the term in a general way as well. For example we read in Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Here the Greek word is used in a general way just as we might use it. But when ever Matthew uses adelphos in a familial way he uses it to mean "brother" in its normal/ precise way.

To claim that the brethren and sisters mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel are not Jesus' half brothers and half sisters, can only be done if you approach the Scriptures with the preconceived idea that Mary had to remain a virgin forever. This is eisogeting (reading into) the text.

On the use of the word “till” Father Champagne is correct when he writes, “The greek conjunction heos can be legitimately translated as "till" or "until" but it does not restrict the continuance of the action beyond the time indicated.” But again I do believe our position is “the” natural reading of the text. If we approach the text without preconceptions of Mary’s perpetual Virginity we would naturally understand it as I show in my original letter.

When Fr. Champagne asks, “where does it say "Scripture Alone" in the Bible?” I would simply respond “Were does one find the word “Trinity” in the Bible. Our doctrine of “Scripture alone” as the foundation of right doctrine is not taken from a single verse, but from our overall understanding of God’s Word.

I don’t disparage tradition, as so many non-Roman Catholics do. I love tradition. There is much that we can and should learn from tradition. I consider myself a member of the holy catholic Church. I also consider my Roman Catholic family members and friends to be part of the holy catholic Church. I am reading a good deal in the Church fathers. I count Athanasius, Augustine Anselm and Aquinas all as my brethren (adelphous) in Christ. I look to them for guidance and instruction. They do not perfectly agree with one another and I do not perfectly agree with any of them, but I respect them and do not part from them without careful thought and prayer. They were all far better scholars and Christians than I will ever be.

I greatly lament the division of the Western Church since Luther. The Roman Church was correct when it said that with the break of 1517, Pandora’s box of perpetual heresy would be opened up. And it has been, but I believe the Lord will yet repair the breach that exists within the Church of Jesus Christ in His timing.

Father Champagne recommended a couple of books to your friend. One of them, Unabridged Christianity by Fr. Mario Romero, I purchased a couple of months back. I too recommend it. Fr Romero does a good job defending the Roman Catholic position, and it is always good to read, first hand, the views of a brother with whom you disagree (or even, at times, agree).

Coram Deo,
Kenith

A Deacon, A Bishop and Wine

A good friend asked me about the qualifications that Paul gives in 1Tim. 3:3 and 3:8 for the offices of a bishop (same as elder) and that of a deacon. Paul says that a bishop is be not “given to wine” and a deacon was to be “Not given to much wine.” His question was are these two different standards? Is the deacon allowed to have wine and not a minister.

Here is what I sent my friend.

Below you will find some information on I Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7. A bishop is not to be “given to wine.” The word translated “given to wine” (paroinos[n]) is defined by Strong as “drunken.” I have placed Strong; Vines, three other Bible translations, Calvin’s commentary and some other’s comments on this matter below.

Strongs: paroinos {par'-oy-nos} given to wine 1) given to wine, drunken

Vines Dictionary: an adjective, lit., "tarrying at wine" (para, "at," oinos, "wine"), "given to wine," I Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7, AV, probably has the secondary sense, of the effects of wine-bibbing, viz., abusive brawling.

New Testament Greek Lexicon: pa/roinov paroinos Phonetic Spelling par'-oy-nos :given to wine, addicted to wine

NASB: not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
RSV: no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
Darby: not given to excesses from wine, not a striker, but mild, not addicted to contention, not fond of money,

Calvin’s commentary: Not addicted to wine. By the word paroinon, which is here used, the Greeks denote not merely drunkenness, but any intemperance in guzzling wine. And, indeed, to drink wine excessively is not only very unbecoming in a pastor, but commonly draws along with it many things still worse; such as quarrels, foolish attitudes, unchaste conduct, and other things which it is not necessary to describe. But the contrast which is added shortly afterwards, shews that Paul goes farther than this.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary of the Whole Bible: No drunkard: Not given to wine. The priests were not to drink wine when they went in to minister (Lev. 10:8, 9), lest they should drink and pervert the law.

Adam Clark’s commentary: An eighth article in his character is, he must not be given to wine; me paroinon. This word not only signifies one who is inordinately attached to wine, a winebibber or tippler, but also one who is imperious, abusive, insolent, whether through wine or otherwise.

Fred G. Zaspel of Life Baptist Church, Pottsville, PA: says 8. Not given to wine. This term (paroinos, from para, beside, and oinos wine) signifies literally, "not [one who lingers] beside [his] wine." That is, he is not addicted to wine. He can control it, it does not control him.

Kenneth Gentry (one of my modern favorites) writes: For instance, I Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:3 employ the Greek paroinos, which indicates one who sits long beside (para) his wine (oinos). I Timothy 3:8 reads in the Greek: me oino pollo prosechontas. Notice the word pollo, which indicates "much" and prosechontas, which with the dative here means "occupied with."

Hampton Keathley III at Bible.org (Commentary on Titus) writes: “Not a drunkard.” “A drunkard” is paroinos, “addicted to wine, given to drink, a heavy drinker.” It is derived from para, “along side” and oinos, “wine.” It refers to one who sits long at his wine and becomes intoxicated and under its control rather than that of the Spirit (cf. Eph. 5:18). This is not the place due to time and space to deal with the issue of whether or not Christians should drink alcoholic beverages, but a few observations are in order. First, Paul does not forbid the use of wine or teach total abstinence.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Evolution, Science and Religion

One of the most gifted Christian thinkers of the 20th century was Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen is probably best known as an “apologist” or defender of the Christian faith. He has debated and crushed a number of prominent academic atheists. Greg Bahnsen, was (he passed away in late 1995) a man of great learning and simple faith.

He said this in a paper he wrote about biblical revelation and modern science:

Despite the enthusiasm of modern science in pursuing study and research on the "origin of life," it must be recognized that all questions of origins fall outside the realm of empirical science! ... In the matter of origins, where the scientist can neither observe nor experiment, one is left to depend either on guesswork speculation or infallible revelation.

Bahnsen makes a very important point here that is missed by most Christians and non-Christians alike. The study of origins can not, by its very nature, be "science," as it is defined and understood in the modern world. The study of origins is actually philosophical and theological and it can never be truly “empirical” science. When scientists speak of origins in scientific terms, they are promoting their own philosophy, religion and worldview not empirical science.

Observation, experimentation and verification are the methods used in empirical science. None of these are possible for the creation, because it is the study of event which took place before man ever came on to the scene. The evolutionist is an evolutionist by FAITH and not by science. He believes as he does, not because it is proven scientifically, but because he chooses to. It is his leap of faith, and it is a great leap.

For the Christian to bow to so called modern evolutionary science, and attempt to make the Christian faith fit with the evolutionist faith; is to compromise with a false religion. Evolution is faith that is always changing. Evolution is atheistic religion and not science.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

Sun, Moon and Stars

In Isaiah 13 we read of God's judgement of the very literal city of ancient Babylon by raising up the Medes to conquer them. We know that this event did happen in history. In 539 BC the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon destroyed the Babylonian Empire. In Isaiah 13:10 we read about the conquest of this historic city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians. Isaiah writes of this event “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.”

This is not some event yet future to us that Isaiah is talking about. No; he is speaking of a time that is now long in the past, the destruction for the ancient Babylonian Empire. We can study this event in history. The prophecy of God's judgement against Babylon was literally fulfilled, but the "stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine" were not literal and these things did not literally happen then. The stars, sun and moon all still continued to shine when Babylon fell to the Medes. So what did the prophet mean by this prophesy?

In Isaiah 34 we read another interesting statement about God's judgement against the descendants of Esau (Idumea or Edom): Isaiah says “And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.”

The descendants of Esau were very severely judged by God and they became a conquered and defeated people, but the apocryphal, prophetic language used by Isaiah was not to be understood as literal. The heavens were not literally rolled up as a scroll, and their host (stars) did not literally fall when Edom was destroyed.

The following quote is an excerpt from the Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. They write "When Judah was captive in Babylon, Edom, in every way, insulted over her fallen mistress, killed many of those Jews whom the Chaldeans had left, and hence was held guilty of fratricide by God (Esau, their ancestor, having been brother to Jacob): this was the cause of the denunciations of the prophets against Edom ( Isa. 63:1 &c; Jer 49:7; Eze 25:12-14; 35:3-15; Joe. 1:19; Am 1:11,12; Ob 8,10,12-18; Mal 1:3,4) Nebuchadnezzar humbled Idumea accordingly."

We find in the prophesies of Isaiah very literal event: The judgement of Edom (Idumea) by another nation - Babylon, under the command of Nebuchadnezzar. In this event we find language about the heavens being effected by the earthly collapse of a pagan kingdom.

When read this kind of thing in Scripture we have to ask ourselves an important question. Were the heavens actually rolled together as a scroll when Edom fell to Nebuchadnezzar? The answer to our question is No! The reason is this is symbolic language used in the Scriptures to express the calamity involved in the fall of earthly kingdoms and powers.

If you recall ancient pagan kings were usually seen as the son of a pagan god. To the ancient pagans of the Middle East the sun, moon and stars were god’s themselves and the king and his princes were related to them. So when a kingdom fell it was as though the heavenly host of that pagan people were falling.

In Ezekiel 32 we read of God's judgement on Egypt by Babylon. The Babylonians defeated the Egyptians and ruled over them. We know this, it is well documented. From the prophet writings we find that this conquest is an act of divine judgement. This is what God says about His judgement on Egypt. “And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.” (Eze. 32:7-8)

We know the Egyptians were judged by God and in this judgement we read that the sun, moon and stars are said to go dark and no longer shine on the land. This is hyperbolic, apocryphal language used when the powers that be are shaken to the point of collapse, as Egypt was by the Babylonians and the Babylonians were by the Medes and Persians.

There are other examples like these in the Old Testament. The reason I bring them up is to make a point. This kind of language is found many times in the writings of the Old Testament prophets, but they are not literal and were not meant to be understood literally, yet the prophecies were literally fulfilled in time and history. The nations prophesied against were judged and defeated by their enemies that God raised up to judge them, but the imagery of the stars, sun and moon being darkened, and the sky rolling up like a scroll were not to be understood literally in the modern sense.

These things were symbolic (hyperbolic) language used to express the magnitude of God's judgement on these peoples.

Now lets look at a VERY important rule that must be used when we study God's Word "Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture," i.e. Scripture interprets Scripture. We are not to read into God's Word what we "think" it means. We are to look to God's Word and draw from it what it means to say. We must be careful to look and see if and how the Scriptures interpret themselves.

When we read in the New Testament the very same kind of apocryphal language that we find in the Old Testament we MUST allow the Old to direct us in how we are to understand what the New Testament writer is trying to say. So when we read about the sun, moon and stars being darkened in the New Testament it is than not to be understood literally in the New if it was not used literally in the Old.

We read in Matt. 24, Luke 21 and Revelation examples of this same type of judgement where the stars fall from the heavens etc… Simplistic literalism will only cause us to wrongly divide God's Word of Truth. We must let the Scriptures interpret the Scripture and we must not the nightly news, the latest book by Hal Lindsey or some other “prophecy expert” interpret the Scriptures for us. I fear there is a lot of this going on when it comes to "prophecy" in our day.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

Christ Commandments and the Great Commission

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

These words of Jesus have rightly been considered the marching orders of Christ to His Church. That is true, but we often miss what those orders are. The command of the Great Commission is not to "GO." It does not show up clearly in most English translations, but the word go in this verse is, in the original Greek, a passive participle and not a verb.

Ok. And what does that mean? It means that what we read as go should literally be translated "as you are going." As we go about our daily life, we are to be about doing what Christ has commanded here. We are to "make disciples." That’s the command in this sentence. A disciple is a vastly different thing than a convert. A disciple is a student of Christ and His holy Word (the whole Bible).

When someone is converted to the Christian faith they have reached the point where we can then start to obey the Great Commission with them. It is then that they can become a disciple of Christ. It is important to remember that making converts (i.e. evangelism) is certainly presupposed in the Great Commission, but it is not part of the commission itself.

What are disciples to be taught? Jesus doesn't leave this up to us or what we feel. He tells us the answer in verse 20. He says "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That, my friends, is a very tall order.

In a previous blog I showed the importance of keeping Christ commandments. We saw how observing of God’s Commands is vital in the Christian life. It is clear that St. James and St. John both wrote that one who doesn't do as Christ commanded has a dead faith and such a dead faith is not a saving faith. Here again we see, in the commission of Jesus to his Church, the important it is for us to "observe all things whatsoever I [i.e. Jesus] commanded."

So we are to be learners and doers of Christ's commandments and "as we are going" we are to teach others to be learners and doers of Christ commands. Getting someone to pray a "sinners prayer" is not the demand of the great commission. The commission is to teach those that come to Christ to obey and do all that He commanded.

We see in the Great Commission what Paul said in Ephesians. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:10) We are saved unto good works.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith

Keep Commandments?

God’s people are saved from their sins by His grace through faith. Paul makes this very clear in his epistle to the Ephesians. He says: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:2-9). I have heard that quote countless times, and I thoroughly agree with my brothers who stress that salvation is all of God and grace is His unmerited favour to us. But many times these same brothers forget what Paul says in verse ten. He writes "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10)

We are saved UNTO good works. Our good works are a vital aspect of our Christian life. They are so vital that James, in his epistle to the universal (catholic) church, said in chapter two "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17,18)

James makes clear that someone who claims faith in Christ, but has no works (fruit) that are in line with true faith has a dead faith. Such faith is not true faith, and therefore it is not saving faith, because true/saving faith in Jesus will produce good works. James asked a rhetorical question to make this very point. He wrote in verse fourteen of chapter two "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" The obvious answer is an emphatic No, because as James stresses true faith will produce good works in the believer.

Many folks will respond "but we are under grace not law." Such people are referring to Paul’s statement in his letter to the Church at Rome (Romans 6:14), but the context in which I have so often heard this statement made shows a gross misunderstanding of Paul, and the Law/Grace distinctions.

The law of God condemns all who are fallen in Adam, and especially those that know God’s Word, but have rejected Christ. God’s law is a holy reflection of the very character and nature of God himself. (I am not talking of the ceremonial law, which was a shadow that pointed out to the Old Covenant believer his sinfulness and his need for the saviour to come. That aspect of the Old Covenant economy is clearly done away with in the New Covenant). It is not just a coincidence that the longest chapter in the whole Bible (Ps. 119) is a song of praise to God and the holiness and goodness of His law that He has graciously given to His people.

Paul, led by the Holy Spirit, knew that men can and would distort the scriptural teaching on the matter of God’s law and faith. He makes make these statements about the law and faith in Roman’s chapter three. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (28). So far so good; we are not and can not be saved by the law because of sin (Adam’s and our own) the law already condemns us all. But Paul is not yet finished; he goes on to say in verse thirty-one "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

Paul does not give us an either-or / law-grace distinction. The law can not save us. It can only condemn us, because we are sinners and sin by its very definition is a transgression of the law of God. We are saved by grace through faith, but the faith of a true believer will cause him to desire to keep God’s law. Let’s look at Christ’s Word’s on this matter.

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (John 14:23,24)

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10)

Many years after the Apostle heard Jesus speak these Word’s on night before His crucifixion, he (John) wrote similar things in his own short epistles. John wrote "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1John 2:3,4) These are strong Words! For anyone who professes to know Christ and shows no evidence in his/her life, these words should scare him to death. Because according to St. John that individual is likely on the road to hell and that is why Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, tells them (and us also) to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Now back to John's epistles, because he is not finished. He says:

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1John 3:24)

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (1John 5:2)

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1John 5:3)

John continued this theme in his second epistle. He wrote "And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it" (2John 1:6). We find this again in the very last book of the Bible, which is also written by this same John. Lets look at Revelation.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 12:17)

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12)

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Rev. 22:14)

Notice that John ties keeping the commandments very close to salvation itself. They are almost indistinguishable here in John’s writing (just as in James). That is because the Scriptures make clear good works (keeping the Commandments of God) will accompany true, saving faith.

Jesus makes clear that those that know Him (the regenerate/saved) will love Him and that love for Him will cause them to keep His commandments. Remember what Christ said : "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled " (Matt. 5:17,18).Don’t forget that a jot and tittle is the equivalent of our dot of an "I" or the cross of a "T." God’s Law stands till the end of time. It is a reflection of His nature and so God’s law can not cease to be His, and therefore our, standard of righteousness.

The question is "Can we accept Jesus as Saviour and not as Lord?" The answer from Scripture is a resounding "No." These Scriptures include the Whole Council of God, which includes everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kenith