I’m a day (or 2) late (and a dollar short?) in mentioning that my Boston Red Sox won 11 straight games, including a 3 game sweep against the Yankees! Yea buddy! Take that Yanks! It hasn’t been long that I’ve been watching baseball, or that I’ve been a Red Sox fan – 3 years? – it is definitely the greatest game of all time. How could anyone dispute this fact? I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if man’s creativity found a reason to brush baseball aside … although it is probably the same kind of reasoning that leads men to believe Macintosh is superior, or that Pepsi is better than Coke. Need I say more?
Emily and I went to the DBacks game on Saturday, which was the second game in the series against the Giants. They lost on Friday, and ended up losing that night. But we still had a great time at the game, and we were ahead for a couple innings after Upton hit a sweet homer.
Funny story time. So this lady a few rows ahead of us was holding up a sign that read, “Eric Byrnes, I heart you!” (An actual heart was there). Suddenly, some guy in the row behind us yells, “I came to watch the game not a sign!” And the sign whipped out of sight. A few innings later, while Byrnes was at bat, that same guy started obnoxiously yelling: “Oh Eric! My heart BUUURNS for you! I love you Eric! … Where oh where is the Eric-sign?!?!” He had everyone around us laughing. Needless to say, that woman was a bit embarrassed =).
And now for something completely different.
I was teaching my high school Sunday skewl class a few Sundays ago and was mentioning some bands that were cool in my day: Third Eye Blind, Hootie and the Blowfish, Smashing Pumpkins, and some others. They hadn’t heard of any of ‘em! Astonished, I was. Thankfully, they recognized some of Third Eye Blind’s songs once I started singing some well-known lines. But still … sad. I think what I need to do is bring my laptop one morning and play selective tunes while we’re all settling in, that way they can at least have a basic knowledge of the greatest era of music in recent history.
Anyone excited about Wolverine and Star Trek?! I’m seriously considering going to the midnight showings for both – even though I open the following mornings =). Anyone wanna go? Ferrealz.
Dba dba dba dba, that’s all folks!
Let’s Go Bos-ton!
Casey of Basey
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
God created the earth in SIX literal days?
Up until 200 years ago there was almost no question in the church that God created the earth in six literal days. However, as knowledge through science grew so did man’s theories!
Augustine, a 5th Century philosopher and theologian had his own Old-Earth theory. He said that the days in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth day. So if the sun was not made until the fourth day that is a good reason to theorize in a gap theory?
Here is a quote from a renowned young Earth creationist, Terry Mortenson. “The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t the context is clear” (day is used 2301 times in the O.T -Gen 1:5) why only question genesis? I think it is clear that the earth, by the authority of His word without question, was created in six literal days.
Theories have led men to believe, that only scientists could answer the questions of the creation of the world. The belief of the Gap theory has started to sneak into the church with great deception (Rom 16:17-18), theories that the earth and universe are millions of years old.
Some even believe that dinosaurs walked the earth long BEFORE man & God killed them off to make room for man. Let’s look at what God’s Word says!
Did dinosaurs live and die before Adam & Eve? Genesis 3:21 makes it clear that the first death after the creation of life (animal & man) was made by God. After sin entered the world, God killed the first living creature to make clothes for the now sinful Adam & Eve. (Rom 5:12)
These are just some reasons why we believe that the Bible is giving us the TRUE history of the World.
God’s Word is the final authority!
In Christ,
Eli
Augustine, a 5th Century philosopher and theologian had his own Old-Earth theory. He said that the days in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth day. So if the sun was not made until the fourth day that is a good reason to theorize in a gap theory?
Here is a quote from a renowned young Earth creationist, Terry Mortenson. “The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24 hour days, a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t the context is clear” (day is used 2301 times in the O.T -Gen 1:5) why only question genesis? I think it is clear that the earth, by the authority of His word without question, was created in six literal days.
Theories have led men to believe, that only scientists could answer the questions of the creation of the world. The belief of the Gap theory has started to sneak into the church with great deception (Rom 16:17-18), theories that the earth and universe are millions of years old.
Some even believe that dinosaurs walked the earth long BEFORE man & God killed them off to make room for man. Let’s look at what God’s Word says!
Did dinosaurs live and die before Adam & Eve? Genesis 3:21 makes it clear that the first death after the creation of life (animal & man) was made by God. After sin entered the world, God killed the first living creature to make clothes for the now sinful Adam & Eve. (Rom 5:12)
These are just some reasons why we believe that the Bible is giving us the TRUE history of the World.
God’s Word is the final authority!
In Christ,
Eli
Monday, April 20, 2009
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
A couple factors led me to read Karl Marx’s and Frederick Engels’ The Communist Manifesto. For some reason, ever since Obama was selected as the Democratic candidate for President I have heard more talk about Marxism, Communism and Socialism than at any other point in my life. One of my friends at church was telling me about a Marxist friend of his who professes to be a Christian. We talked about how Marxism and Christianity have conflicting perspectives, and the likelihood of a true Christian having a Marxist political philosophy. The cherry on top for me was the day I decided to openly make negative comments about Marxism to gain a better understanding of how “normal” non-Christian folks think about it. By far, the most common reaction from the people I spoke with was a visible display of discomfort at their uncertainty about Marxism and/or Karl Marx.
And here we are. I ordered the book and was pleasantly surprised when I saw it was only 57 pages in length, which meant I could probably read it in one sitting. This is precisely what I did and I have to say … I have never received more strange looks from people for reading a book. Slowly, I attempted to hide the title on the cover because it was pretty embarrassing to read.
My first impression of The Communist Manifesto was that he was using a peculiar vocabulary, especially two terms that continuously made their way onto the page: “Borgeois” and “Proletarians.” The Borgeois consist of any group of people who own private property, the middle class, and all upper classes including royalty and most national rulers. Proletarians refer to the lowest of all the classes and do not own any private property.
If you want a summary of this entire work, here is my official understanding of his conclusions: It isn’t fair that some own private property while others don’t, therefore we should do away with all private property. While we’re at it, let’s do away with religion, morality, and the family unit.
No, I’m not kidding. I don’t believe Marx said a single thing I agree with, and that’s saying something. His worldview and presuppositions are completely wrong, his political philosophy wouldn’t work, he is completely opposed to moral standards and religion in general, and finally, he doesn’t recognize the terrible terrible inconsistencies within his own philosophy.
More than once, Marx and Engels acknowledge the criticism of their viewpoints. Here is one example,
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend” (Marx, K. Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto. Pg. 31. Brandywine Studio Press. 1888).
Yes, I am horrified at such an intention. I am unfamiliar with the correctness of the statement that 90% of the population at that time didn’t own property and were in the lowest of the classes. In any case, and he makes these kinds of statements throughout the entire work, it seems like I can pinpoint a handful of his presuppositions:
(1) It isn’t fair that some people have more than others.
(2) If someone has more than you, you have a right to take it from them to make yourself feel better.
(3) Their (Proletarians) rights are more important than the rights of the Borgeois.
Marx notes another objection, “…that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us” (Marx, K. Engels, F. Pg. 32).
What is his response? “According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pg. 32).
[Enter sarcasm] Oh! What a brilliant response! I had no idea the rich were lazy and undeserving of their extravagant wealth. [Exit sarcasm] Seriously though, what a copout of an answer. Does he expect us to believe that the wealthy in society are lazy? Did they attain their great wealth through great amounts of effort or from idleness? His response is pathetic. Terribad.
Oh, and if you attempt to interact with his arguments from a religious or philosophical perspective, Marx has this to say: “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pg. 36). Okay then. Marx just demonstrated how serious he is of persuading his opponents.
Pages 38 and 39 have a list of 10 steps to have a successful Communist revolution. I wish I was joking, but at least we know what to look for.
The final words of The Communist Manifesto are about as bad as it gets. Nothing I can say could do it justice so I’ll just quote the following:
“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pgs. 56-57).
Anyone else feeling sickly? Ugh. Let me remind the reader that Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by Karl Marx, which seems to be a wonderful expression of the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
One of my friends recently asked me, “But, isn’t Communism a good idea on paper but just lacks some direction to function properly?”
I asked, “Which Communist nation recently failed?”
He answered, “Oh yea … The Soviet Union.”
“Yea,” I said, “the reason for this is because Communism is bad on paper and bad in real life. It makes-believe that human beings are something they are not and expects society to function on make-believe ideas. It doesn’t work.”
Rustoleum
And here we are. I ordered the book and was pleasantly surprised when I saw it was only 57 pages in length, which meant I could probably read it in one sitting. This is precisely what I did and I have to say … I have never received more strange looks from people for reading a book. Slowly, I attempted to hide the title on the cover because it was pretty embarrassing to read.
My first impression of The Communist Manifesto was that he was using a peculiar vocabulary, especially two terms that continuously made their way onto the page: “Borgeois” and “Proletarians.” The Borgeois consist of any group of people who own private property, the middle class, and all upper classes including royalty and most national rulers. Proletarians refer to the lowest of all the classes and do not own any private property.
If you want a summary of this entire work, here is my official understanding of his conclusions: It isn’t fair that some own private property while others don’t, therefore we should do away with all private property. While we’re at it, let’s do away with religion, morality, and the family unit.
No, I’m not kidding. I don’t believe Marx said a single thing I agree with, and that’s saying something. His worldview and presuppositions are completely wrong, his political philosophy wouldn’t work, he is completely opposed to moral standards and religion in general, and finally, he doesn’t recognize the terrible terrible inconsistencies within his own philosophy.
More than once, Marx and Engels acknowledge the criticism of their viewpoints. Here is one example,
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend” (Marx, K. Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto. Pg. 31. Brandywine Studio Press. 1888).
Yes, I am horrified at such an intention. I am unfamiliar with the correctness of the statement that 90% of the population at that time didn’t own property and were in the lowest of the classes. In any case, and he makes these kinds of statements throughout the entire work, it seems like I can pinpoint a handful of his presuppositions:
(1) It isn’t fair that some people have more than others.
(2) If someone has more than you, you have a right to take it from them to make yourself feel better.
(3) Their (Proletarians) rights are more important than the rights of the Borgeois.
Marx notes another objection, “…that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us” (Marx, K. Engels, F. Pg. 32).
What is his response? “According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pg. 32).
[Enter sarcasm] Oh! What a brilliant response! I had no idea the rich were lazy and undeserving of their extravagant wealth. [Exit sarcasm] Seriously though, what a copout of an answer. Does he expect us to believe that the wealthy in society are lazy? Did they attain their great wealth through great amounts of effort or from idleness? His response is pathetic. Terribad.
Oh, and if you attempt to interact with his arguments from a religious or philosophical perspective, Marx has this to say: “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pg. 36). Okay then. Marx just demonstrated how serious he is of persuading his opponents.
Pages 38 and 39 have a list of 10 steps to have a successful Communist revolution. I wish I was joking, but at least we know what to look for.
The final words of The Communist Manifesto are about as bad as it gets. Nothing I can say could do it justice so I’ll just quote the following:
“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Mark, K. Engels, F. Pgs. 56-57).
Anyone else feeling sickly? Ugh. Let me remind the reader that Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by Karl Marx, which seems to be a wonderful expression of the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
One of my friends recently asked me, “But, isn’t Communism a good idea on paper but just lacks some direction to function properly?”
I asked, “Which Communist nation recently failed?”
He answered, “Oh yea … The Soviet Union.”
“Yea,” I said, “the reason for this is because Communism is bad on paper and bad in real life. It makes-believe that human beings are something they are not and expects society to function on make-believe ideas. It doesn’t work.”
Rustoleum
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Witnessing to Those Who Believe They're Persecuted
“Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12, NASB). There is almost nothing about this verse that is true of the Latter-day Saints, though I am certain they would disagree with me =). Alpha and Omega Ministries spent our Friday and Saturday evening handing out tracts at the Mormon temple in Mesa, AZ. It was painfully obvious that this people group believes that anyone opposed to their faith is there to persecute them. True, the King-James-Only groups were there to mock them and stir up all sorts of emotions, but many non-Latter-day Saints were there just to talk.
AOMin has attended the Mesa Easter pageant and both General Conferences put on by the LDS Church since 1983 – I was approximately one year old (sorry James, I had to mention it =)). This was my eighth year handing out tracts at the Easter Pageant, and fourth year since I’ve officially been a part of AOMin. My style and motivation for witnessing has certainly changed over the years, but my message has remained the same: I desire Latter-day Saints to believe in the one true and living triune God of the Bible, and not in the god and gods of Mormonism.
I have spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of Latter-day Saints, and you would think that after all of those conversations I would grow accustomed to watching Mormons pass me by with an evil glare. But I never have grown accustomed to it. Entire families would cross to the other side of the street to avoid being asked to read one of our tracts. You’d think we had the Black Plague or something =). Rich Pierce, President of AOMin, put it best when he described Mormons as having a “persecuted chip on their shoulder.”
In the face of such massive rejection, why do we spend the time handing out tracts to this people group? First and foremost, we desire to bring honor and glory to God by the faithful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Secondly, we pray for the salvation of Latter-day Saints … that it might please God to grant them saving faith and repentance unto life. The Mormons are one of the most unreached people groups in the United States, and … my God can save anybody. No cultic system that spends time training their members not to read or consider opposing ideas can stand in the way of the Holy Spirit of God who saves to the uttermost those whom He has chosen to save.
Both nights felt like productive nights. Between Friday and Saturday I had five or six good conversations with folks. One conversation was with a convert from Roman Catholicism. Most of our time was spent discussing the Trinity, and how the Latter-day Saint belief that the three divine Persons are three beings contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. We reached a point in our discussion where this gentleman understood the problem his beliefs were in the face of Scripture and attempted to divert the point by suggesting that the existence of the Roman Catholic Church proves the true church fell away. I let him know that (1) Christ’s Church was not set up like the Roman Church exists today, as a single organization; (2) the Roman Catholic Church developed over time as power centralized around Rome; and finally (3) that the true church could not have fallen away because Paul wrote that Christ would be glorified in His church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21). This LDS was a bit surprised by this information, especially the statement by Paul. I explained that Christ’s church has existed from the beginning, though not as the Roman Church, and concluded our conversation by urging him to turn from the false gods of Mormonism unto the one true God.
Emily joined us Saturday night, and was able to watch an interesting conversation started by a Mormon shot out a one-line jab, not really intended for a meaningful conversation. Thankfully the light turned red as he went to cross the street, and so I walked right up to him =). I handed him my tract with a question on the front: “One god, or many gods?” Inside are excerpts from one of Joseph Smith’s famous sermons he delivered at a funeral. I began by asking him the question on the front.
He responded with a chuckle: “There’s only one god.”
I followed up: “Which one? Because according to Mormonism the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings and three gods.”
LDS: “Well, we only worship one god … our Heavenly Father.”
Me: “I understand that, but you still acknowledge the existence of more than one god?”
LDS: “And?”
Me: “The reason this is important is because the Bible says that there is only one being that is God.”
LDS: “So you believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all the same?”
I spent a few moments explaining the doctrine of the Trinity: One Being of God, three distinct Persons sharing God’s Being, and that the Persons are all coequal and coeternal.
Me: “As a Mormon, is it fair to say that you believe the Bible says that Elojim is the Father while Jehovah is the Son?”
LDS: “Yes.”
Me: “There are numerous places where the Bible says that Elohim is Jehovah. One verse is Psalm 100:3. Let me ask you: how can this verse make sense from your religious perspective? However, it makes perfect sense from a Christian Trinitarian perspective because the Bible describes each of the three divine Persons as Jehovah.”
We wrapped up the conversation shortly after this so my LDS friend could grab a seat. Though it may not sound like it, this entire conversation was less than five minutes long. My hope is that those few brief moments remain fresh in that gentleman’s mind and that his heart is troubled by the false teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I’ll spend some more time reporting on fruitful conversations in a later post, including my favorite conversation with some high school boys. Yup, I saved the best for last =).
Until next time,
Rusty
AOMin has attended the Mesa Easter pageant and both General Conferences put on by the LDS Church since 1983 – I was approximately one year old (sorry James, I had to mention it =)). This was my eighth year handing out tracts at the Easter Pageant, and fourth year since I’ve officially been a part of AOMin. My style and motivation for witnessing has certainly changed over the years, but my message has remained the same: I desire Latter-day Saints to believe in the one true and living triune God of the Bible, and not in the god and gods of Mormonism.
I have spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of Latter-day Saints, and you would think that after all of those conversations I would grow accustomed to watching Mormons pass me by with an evil glare. But I never have grown accustomed to it. Entire families would cross to the other side of the street to avoid being asked to read one of our tracts. You’d think we had the Black Plague or something =). Rich Pierce, President of AOMin, put it best when he described Mormons as having a “persecuted chip on their shoulder.”
In the face of such massive rejection, why do we spend the time handing out tracts to this people group? First and foremost, we desire to bring honor and glory to God by the faithful proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Secondly, we pray for the salvation of Latter-day Saints … that it might please God to grant them saving faith and repentance unto life. The Mormons are one of the most unreached people groups in the United States, and … my God can save anybody. No cultic system that spends time training their members not to read or consider opposing ideas can stand in the way of the Holy Spirit of God who saves to the uttermost those whom He has chosen to save.
Both nights felt like productive nights. Between Friday and Saturday I had five or six good conversations with folks. One conversation was with a convert from Roman Catholicism. Most of our time was spent discussing the Trinity, and how the Latter-day Saint belief that the three divine Persons are three beings contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. We reached a point in our discussion where this gentleman understood the problem his beliefs were in the face of Scripture and attempted to divert the point by suggesting that the existence of the Roman Catholic Church proves the true church fell away. I let him know that (1) Christ’s Church was not set up like the Roman Church exists today, as a single organization; (2) the Roman Catholic Church developed over time as power centralized around Rome; and finally (3) that the true church could not have fallen away because Paul wrote that Christ would be glorified in His church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21). This LDS was a bit surprised by this information, especially the statement by Paul. I explained that Christ’s church has existed from the beginning, though not as the Roman Church, and concluded our conversation by urging him to turn from the false gods of Mormonism unto the one true God.
Emily joined us Saturday night, and was able to watch an interesting conversation started by a Mormon shot out a one-line jab, not really intended for a meaningful conversation. Thankfully the light turned red as he went to cross the street, and so I walked right up to him =). I handed him my tract with a question on the front: “One god, or many gods?” Inside are excerpts from one of Joseph Smith’s famous sermons he delivered at a funeral. I began by asking him the question on the front.
He responded with a chuckle: “There’s only one god.”
I followed up: “Which one? Because according to Mormonism the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings and three gods.”
LDS: “Well, we only worship one god … our Heavenly Father.”
Me: “I understand that, but you still acknowledge the existence of more than one god?”
LDS: “And?”
Me: “The reason this is important is because the Bible says that there is only one being that is God.”
LDS: “So you believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all the same?”
I spent a few moments explaining the doctrine of the Trinity: One Being of God, three distinct Persons sharing God’s Being, and that the Persons are all coequal and coeternal.
Me: “As a Mormon, is it fair to say that you believe the Bible says that Elojim is the Father while Jehovah is the Son?”
LDS: “Yes.”
Me: “There are numerous places where the Bible says that Elohim is Jehovah. One verse is Psalm 100:3. Let me ask you: how can this verse make sense from your religious perspective? However, it makes perfect sense from a Christian Trinitarian perspective because the Bible describes each of the three divine Persons as Jehovah.”
We wrapped up the conversation shortly after this so my LDS friend could grab a seat. Though it may not sound like it, this entire conversation was less than five minutes long. My hope is that those few brief moments remain fresh in that gentleman’s mind and that his heart is troubled by the false teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I’ll spend some more time reporting on fruitful conversations in a later post, including my favorite conversation with some high school boys. Yup, I saved the best for last =).
Until next time,
Rusty
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The "Emerging Conversation"
I love Phil Johnson’s blog. Am I allowed to come right out and say that? =). Well, I just did. Among the Reformed blogosphere, Phil has been a refreshing voice that is both Biblical and well-balanced (funny that these two qualities should work well together). Among other things, his discussions about the Emergent/ing Church Movement (ECM) have been especially helpful to me as I’ve encountered Emergent Churchers in my own life. Names like Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Brian Mclaren and Mark Driscoll started popping up, as well as their books. I have watched with eager anticipation as the initial attraction and excitement to this “Christian” fad began to fade; as the holes became more apparent.
Phil recently posted a video of a discussion panel about the “Emergent/ing Conversation” hosted by Christian Book Expo in
(1) Paul believed his theology enough to herald it.
(2) Paul was willing to suffer for the proclamation of his theology. He didn’t suffer for telling everyone that God was love (though this is true), he wasn’t thrown into prison for telling people that they needed to forgive each other, he wasn’t going to die as a martyr because he was trying to fund people’s unique spiritual journeys. He was about to die because the message he proclaimed was foolishness to Greeks and a stumbling block to Jews.
(3) Paul’s confidence in suffering came from knowing in whom He believed.
(4) Paul treasured an orthodox standard of Gospel truths.
(5) Paul believed in the task of the preacher – the Church is to guard this good deposit.
(6) Paul believed that championing this theology must be done in the faith and love of Christ Jesus.
Kevin DeYoung concluded his opening remarks by pointing out that 5 out of these 6 observations are questioned by many Emergent/ing books that he’s read. My own reading of the leaders of this movement confirms this.
DeYoung’s first 5 points would sound extremely offensive to members of the ECM because it is inherently opposed to limiting itself to any form of Orthodoxy. It is true that some men, like Mark Driscoll, have officially disassociated with the movement, but the fundamental distinctives that defined them as Emergent/ing remain. I found his second point unbelievably amusing because persecution isn’t a realistic result of an Emergent philosophy of ministry. In fact, the more I’ve thought about it I consider the ECM as a movement of men-pleasers. If they spent half the time preaching the gospel as much as they try to please the desires of men, the gospel message might be heard throughout our nation.
Preceding his comments from 2 Timothy, Mr. DeYoung mentioned that he agrees with many of their analyses, but disagrees with their suggested cures. Again, he is spot on.
The cure for our postmodern culture is not a postmodern approach to the gospel. The cure is the gospel, unashamedly proclaimed in all its fullness. Rather than appealing to the itching desires of sinful men, we ought to be bringers of light who boldly speak the truth of Scripture. Emergent philosophies water down, dumb down, edit and/or remove the gospel just to gain the acceptance of men. What will it gain them in the end? Nothing. Nothing. AOMin is currently using the old slogan, “What you win them with is what you win them to.” In other words, if you preach a watered down message, you will win them to a watered down religion.
I will conclude with a thought from the Apostle Paul, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians
Thanks for reading,
Case
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical?
As I worked my way through the testimonies of individuals who left Protestantism towards Rome in Surprised by Truth, I noticed that all of the authors had one thing in common as Protestants: their inability to defend Sola Scriptura. The book barrages the reader with the sentiment of surprise (no pun intended) that the early church fathers sound so “Catholic,” until eventually the Roman claim of infallibility results in the distrust of the perspicuity and authority of the holy Scriptures. When this happens, no argument from Scripture is allowed an impact because only the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.
In his chapter titled “From Controversy to Consolation,” Robert Sungenis says something I absolutely agree with: “Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister who converted to the Catholic faith, was particularly helpful. His conversion story, as many have discovered, is one of the most fascinating and challenging testimonies ever heard. He found that the notion of sola scriptura (the formal principle of the Reformation: The Bible is the sole infallible authority for Christians) is so ingrained in Protestant thinking that most take it for granted without any solid proofs” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 103. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). In my experience, this describes the vast majority of Protestants I’ve come across. As Mr. Sungenis describes his own journey towards Rome, it came as a surprise to me that he was influenced by Norman Shepherd and Harold Camping, while traveling between Presbyterian churches and the Church of Christ. He claimed to believe in the Doctrines of Grace for a time then later in the baptismal regeneration taught by the Church of Christ. How does one manage that kind of theological shift? I would submit to you that it is because he was lacking a proper foundation in Sola Scriptura.
Robert Sungenis continues, “Hahn’s study of Scripture led him to the conclusion that sola scriptura is not only unhistorical and unworkable, it was unbiblical. He argued very persuasively that, far from being merely a concept with obscure of minimal scriptural support, sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 103. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). There you have it: the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura, therefore it isn’t Biblical.
A Roman Catholic friend of mine recently asked me if I believed the first century church practiced Sola Scriptura? I began by asking, “While the apostles were still living, or afterwards?” Then he was curious about how I would respond to both scenarios. I explained that while the Apostles were still living there was a period of encscripturation, where Scripture was still being written, and therefore it would be impossible to practice Sola Scriptura. But once the gift of apostleship ceased the Church was to look to the only God-breathed and infallible authority on earth: the Scriptures. This means that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught in its fullness in the Bible because the doctrine was not being fully practiced until the cessation of the apostles. What we do see are clear Scriptural explanations about the nature, authority and purposes of Scripture. Also, transition texts like Hebrews 1, and 2 Timothy 3 point to our spiritual guide once the apostles were gone.
It is a shame that Mr. Sungenis didn’t perform a higher quality of research while seeking answers to Catholic claims (does that phrase sound oddly familiar to anyone else? =)).
One final thought – since I am in complete agreement with Mr. Sungenis’ analysis of how well the average Protestant knows Sola Scriptura, what are we to do about it? Firstly, don’t take the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for granted. We cannot afford to assume it’s true. We need to turn to the Scriptures to increase our understanding of the nature and purpose of the inspired Word. The consequences of ignoring this great truth can be disastrous … as the testimony of Robert Sungenis makes clear. Might we be able to rejoice with the Psalmist who wrote, “105Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105, NASB).
Thanks,
Rusty
In his chapter titled “From Controversy to Consolation,” Robert Sungenis says something I absolutely agree with: “Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister who converted to the Catholic faith, was particularly helpful. His conversion story, as many have discovered, is one of the most fascinating and challenging testimonies ever heard. He found that the notion of sola scriptura (the formal principle of the Reformation: The Bible is the sole infallible authority for Christians) is so ingrained in Protestant thinking that most take it for granted without any solid proofs” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 103. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). In my experience, this describes the vast majority of Protestants I’ve come across. As Mr. Sungenis describes his own journey towards Rome, it came as a surprise to me that he was influenced by Norman Shepherd and Harold Camping, while traveling between Presbyterian churches and the Church of Christ. He claimed to believe in the Doctrines of Grace for a time then later in the baptismal regeneration taught by the Church of Christ. How does one manage that kind of theological shift? I would submit to you that it is because he was lacking a proper foundation in Sola Scriptura.
Robert Sungenis continues, “Hahn’s study of Scripture led him to the conclusion that sola scriptura is not only unhistorical and unworkable, it was unbiblical. He argued very persuasively that, far from being merely a concept with obscure of minimal scriptural support, sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly” (Madrid, Patrick. Surprised by Truth. Pg. 103. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). There you have it: the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura, therefore it isn’t Biblical.
A Roman Catholic friend of mine recently asked me if I believed the first century church practiced Sola Scriptura? I began by asking, “While the apostles were still living, or afterwards?” Then he was curious about how I would respond to both scenarios. I explained that while the Apostles were still living there was a period of encscripturation, where Scripture was still being written, and therefore it would be impossible to practice Sola Scriptura. But once the gift of apostleship ceased the Church was to look to the only God-breathed and infallible authority on earth: the Scriptures. This means that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught in its fullness in the Bible because the doctrine was not being fully practiced until the cessation of the apostles. What we do see are clear Scriptural explanations about the nature, authority and purposes of Scripture. Also, transition texts like Hebrews 1, and 2 Timothy 3 point to our spiritual guide once the apostles were gone.
It is a shame that Mr. Sungenis didn’t perform a higher quality of research while seeking answers to Catholic claims (does that phrase sound oddly familiar to anyone else? =)).
One final thought – since I am in complete agreement with Mr. Sungenis’ analysis of how well the average Protestant knows Sola Scriptura, what are we to do about it? Firstly, don’t take the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for granted. We cannot afford to assume it’s true. We need to turn to the Scriptures to increase our understanding of the nature and purpose of the inspired Word. The consequences of ignoring this great truth can be disastrous … as the testimony of Robert Sungenis makes clear. Might we be able to rejoice with the Psalmist who wrote, “105Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105, NASB).
Thanks,
Rusty
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Jesus: "Peter, you are the Rock."
“One problem with this interpretation, which many Protestant Bible scholars admit, is that while Petros and petra did have these meanings in some ancient Greek poetry, the distinction was gone by the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was written. At that time the two words meant the same thing: a rock. Another problem is that when he addressed Peter, Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, a cousin language of Hebrew. In Aramaic there is no difference between the two words which in Greek are rendered as petros and
This is a selection from James Akin’s chapter in Surprised By Truth, a response to Protestant interpretations of Matthew 16:13-20, with an emphasis on verse 18. Among the common interpretations of this passage of Scripture, Akin is here attempting to demonstrate that the words for “Peter” and “rock” can be equated to mean the same thing. In other words, his interpretation of verse 18 goes something like this: “Peter, you are the rock I will build my church upon.” But this is not what the text says, and as much as Roman Catholic apologists wish it were different, the Greek words Petros and
I believe it is for this reason that Mr. Akin, and other Roman Catholic apologists put forth this unique “It was said in Aramaic, so it doesn’t matter how the Greek reads” argument. The major problem with this line of reasoning is that it was in Koine Greek that this conversation was recorded and inspired. I hope James Akin is not suggesting that the God-breathed account of Matthew 16 contradicts the conversation between Jesus and his disciples? I am also glad that Akin does not here attempt to defend the idea that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic – an indefensible idea that is limited to theory because there is no manuscript evidence to support this – though Patrick Madrid in Pope Fiction does make this claim about an Aramaic original of the Gospel according to Matthew.
Moving past the Greek terms “Peter” and “rock,” I think it is important to mention that I believe Jesus is addressing Peter about the rock, and not calling him the rock. When Jesus speaks to Peter he is addressing him in the second person. However, “this rock” is said in the third person using the demonstrative pronoun “this” to clearly differentiate between Peter and the rock.
This also makes perfect sense with the flow of the passage. Consider who the subject is … is it Peter? No, rather the subject is Christ: “He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (13). Again, he asks more directly, “But who do you say that I am?” (15). Peter confesses Christ’s messiahship, which is followed by a statement reaffirming the subject: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (17). The reason Peter is called blessed by Christ is because of the received revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Messiah. Then follows the disputed verse 18: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.”
Note that Jesus does not say what Roman Catholic apologists wish he said: “Peter, you are the rock I will build my church upon” or even “Peter = the rock.”
Roman Catholicism is in an odd position when we consider the doctrine of papal primacy. They claim to be ultimate authority in all things relating to faith and practice, which can be expressed as Sola Ecclesia, or the Church Alone. Furthermore, it is “Mother Church” who infallibly defines and interprets the Scriptures, and can alone guide Christianity because only she has been entrusted with the unwritten traditions passed down through the Roman Magisterium, with the Pope at her head. Yet the Roman Church appeals to the Scriptures to support her ultimate authority, especially with regards to papal infallibility. Matthew 16 has the honor of being such a passage.
The Roman Catholic position bears the burden to prove not simply that their understanding of Matthew 16 is possible, but that it is absolutely true. Unfortunately for
Within the next few days I hope to also interact with a few more comments from Surprised by Truth as well as Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction.
Thanks for reading,
Case of Base
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)