More on Ecumenism

I thought I would continue with the ecumenical theme from yesterday. Today I will be using a clear example from scripture. A case where Paul encountered someone who was teaching a different gospel. Paul did not tolerate the diversion from the true gospel. He did not dismiss the crime, chalking it up to unimportant intellectual differences that shouldn’t be of concern to true believers united in their love of Christ. No, he publicly condemned the error and labeled it as hypocrisy.

You know the punch line. The person Paul condemned was none other than Peter. We read of the account in the book of Galatians:

¹¹ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; ¹²for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. ¹³And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. ¹⁴But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? ¹⁵We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, ¹⁶knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Gal. 211:16, NKJV)

Peter, if not explicitly then at least implicitly through his actions, was teaching that works are required for justification. No doubt Peter also understood that grace was necessary for justification, but by his actions he was, in effect, stating that in addition to grace one had to act as a Jew and do the works of the law in order to be justified. Peter was teaching:

Faith (by grace) + Works --> Justification

As is clear from the rest of Galatians, Paul uses this incident with Peter to segue into teaching a different (in reality the only) gospel:

Faith (by grace) --> Justification + Works

From the rest of the New Testament, we know that Peter corrected himself and ceased his Judaizer error. Paul, in challenging rather than tolerating Peter, did him a great loving service. As for Paul, John Calvin theorizes that the credibility of his (Paul’s) entire ministry depended on his fortitude in standing up to Peter.

We live in an age where society worships at the altar of tolerance. I think we have to resist grabbing onto the humanists’ coattails.

Now none of the bloggers I have been reading, who are presently discussing ecumenism, advocate sacrificing truth for the sake of a false unity. In fact they all rightly warn against it. And other parts of scripture tell us not to let insignificant doctrinal differences divide us. Nevertheless it is inescapable that a zeal for truth and a zeal for unity will, at some point, collide. The question is always: are we disagreeing on something essential. If so, then we need to work on correcting whoever is in error, recognizing that it might be the same person I see everyday in the mirror.

Paul’s rebuke of Peter can serve as a model. Their positions differed by some amount. Clearly Paul’s circle was not big enough to accommodate Peter’s position. If you stress unity among believers whose positions differ as much as those of Peter and Paul (which by today’s standards may not be so rare), then I would say gracious debate, rather than unity, is called for.

The lack of unity does not mean a lack of discussion. In fact, it calls for discussion. Let me use as an example one of my fellow (and one of my favorite) bloggers, Mark Shea.

Mark Shea is one of the preeminent Catholic blogger-apologists (with extremely enviable site traffic). I have had more than a few discussions with Mark and his readers in his comments sections.

From my perspective, and I must stress I am not speaking for Mark, we are not unified in the sense that unified is being used here and in the other posts on ecumenism. From my view (again, I am not speaking for him) our differences are very much like the differences between Peter and Paul in Galatians.

I could not go on a joint mission with Mark; to me our messages are incompatible. I would not feel comfortable encouraging someone to attend Mark’s church. If I had an opportunity to witness to (yes, sheep-steal) one of Mark’s readers would I do it? In a heartbeat.

And yet I go to Mark’s site daily looking for edifying discussion. The fact that I cannot claim “unity” with him does not mean that I can’t learn something from reading his blog. It doesn’t mean I have to pretend he doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t mean that I think he is not saved. It means that I think his teaching is false in an essential area, and that I cannot pretend that it doesn’t matter. I have to call him on it. And he should do the same for me.

Providing the tools to challenge and debate one another may be the greatest benefit blogging has to offer. Before the advent of Christian blogging, I had much less opportunity for discussion outside of my comfort zone. It has been a wonderful development.

A wee comment on Ecumenism

Chris Burgwald has an interesting post on ecumenism (he supports it). Mark Byron has a follow-up over at U. of Blogistan.

I agree with Chris and Mark, in principle. Christ's high priestly prayer of John 17 is a prayer for unity of all believers. However I must once again play the role of the shrew of blogdom. For the quest for ecumenism must always be regulated in light of (frightful) passages such as:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Gal. 1:8)

So the question, and it is a difficult one, is whether a different church or denomination is preaching a different gospel. If so, then there can be no basis whatsoever for unity.

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church accused the Reformers of preaching a different gospel, and vice versa. Were they incorrect in perceiving their differences as irreconcilable? Were they simply irrational-- overcome by the gut-wrenching emotionality of the schism? Do we know better in this reflective, enlightened age?

These are unpleasant questions that must be asked. It is not popular to take a stand against ecumenism. But passages such as Gal. 1:8 cannot be ignored.

Antinomianism

Martin Luther had a student named Johann Agricola, who, to Luther’s dismay, became a proponent of not “just” an erroneous doctrine, but a full-fledged heresy: antinomianism. This term, apparently coined by Luther, means anti-lawism. It arises, either from an honest misunderstanding of what the New Testament teaches about grace and the law or from a darker motivation: as a justification for a license to sin.

There is a happy ending, at least for Mr. Agricola: he eventually recanted his antinomianism.

The antinomianism manifesto is largely based on a misreading the book of Romans (which actually contains some of the strongest refutations of antinomianism). In chapter 6, we read:

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Rom. 6:14, NASB)

Antinomians take this to mean that the moral law of God is not applicable, not binding, and not relevant for Christians who, after all, are saved by grace and grace alone.

A bona-fide antinomian believes that you are actually free to sin because, after all, you are not under the law. This conclusion is so pathological that one must wonder if anyone actually believes it is what the Bible teaches. It is much easier to suspect that such a person is just looking for a justification of his sinful lifestyle.

The position opposite to antinomianism is legalism, which teaches that we must obey God’s moral law perfectly or nearly perfectly to obtain our salvation.

Both antinomianism and legalism misunderstand the relationship between grace and the law. I posted about the law recently and will try not to repeat myself. Except that I will borrow a few sentences from that post that summarize the purpose of the law to those under grace.

The law teaches us what sin is. And that we are sin. And so, being the antithesis of what we must be, we are hopelessly lost. We need a savior who can fulfill the law and then die, under no condemnation, and endure our punishment. We need Christ.

The fact that we are no longer under the law means that our salvation is no longer dependent on our hopeless attempts to obey it perfectly. Christ has done that on our behalf, but not so that we would then be free to revel in our lawlessness.

In this post I will just point out a few verses that are aimed squarely at antinomianism. Although Luther may have invented the term, antinomianism was already found in the early church.

In the book of Romans, Paul writes:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Rom. 3:31, NASB)

If Paul, in Romans, writes as if anticipating the heresy, other New Testament passages attack actual early occurrences. In Jude, we read:

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 4, NASB).

And Paul, writing to the Galatians:

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13, NASB)

There are many other passages warning us about antinomianism including the writings of John, Peter, and James. Clearly, God, understanding our depravity, knew that man would attempt to debase even such an amazing gift: which is God’s grace through Christ Jesus.

As a Calvinist and a firm believer in Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide), I am sensitive to the cavalier use of the accusation of antinomianism. It is a charge sometimes leveled against Reformed Christians by both Roman Catholics and non-reformed Protestants. Indeed, many people, upon hearing the basic ideas of Calvinism for the first time, reflexively equate it to antinomianism. A common initial response (usually spoken as if they are the first person clever enough to come up with the argument) is “I might as well do whatever I want, because I am either of the elect or not—let’s eat, drink, and be merry.”

Calvinism understands the purpose of the law in the life of the Christian. The Holy Spirit will give the elect the desire to obey the law and the ability not to sin. If you are willfully disregarding God’s moral law don’t take false comfort that Calvinism teaches you might be of the elect. You are lost and in need of repentance.

Regulatory Principle

Churches often struggle with the question of acceptable practices in the Worship service. The Regulatory or Regulative Principle addresses this problem thusly: The only acceptable worship is that which is explicitly taught in scripture. If the Bible doesn’t mention a particular activity, such as the use of drama, then it must be avoided.

According to its proponents, the Regulatory Principle is biblical. It is ordained by God for reasons that include the fact that sinful men cannot invent acceptable ways to worship a Holy God. Anything we do invent is likely to be an abomination.

Many churches take essentially the opposite approach: If the Bible does not forbid a practice, then it is acceptable-- providing, of course, that it is edifying.

The Regulatory Principle holds that this type of Christian liberty applies to life, but not to the worship service. Those who support the Regulatory Principle acknowledge that it may seem oppressive, but that’s the way it is. To ignore the Regulatory Principle, say its adherents, is to start down the slippery slope of looking for new and flashier ways to entertain the flock, lest they drift away.

It’s an amazing debate, actually. Do whatever it takes to win souls for Christ versus stick only to what the Bible tells us to do, nothing more nothing less.

The Regulatory Principle is codified in several confessions, including the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. In the latter we read:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

The Westminster Confession contains essentially an identical statement.

One of the stronger scriptural supports for the Regulatory Principle comes from the book of Deuteronomy:

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. (Deuteronomy 12:23)

And two passages that demonstrate the dangers of inventing methods of worship:

¹ Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. ²So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. (Leviticus 10:1-2)

⁸"These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. ⁹And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:8-9)

Easy to State, Hard to Practice

Although not everyone accepts, even in theory, the Regulatory Principle, I do think that all fair-minded persons would say that it is a reasonable position. You can understand how someone would hold such a view, even if you do not.

The trouble comes in putting it to practice. The Bible does not give us a Sunday bulletin with an order of service. Though we may want to do what we are commanded (and only what we are commanded), reaching any sort of consensus is problematic. At least we know we are to pray and to read God’s Word (everybody agrees with that). We know we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (but how often?) We know we are to baptize (but when and how?) Are testimonies biblically-based parts of worship? How about messages and announcements? What about clapping after an especially beautifully rendered song? The questions are endless.

Probably the most contentious issue is in the area of music. Must all hymns be Psalm based? Some churches do not use modern Praise and Worship style songs—claiming that only the “classic” hymns are appropriate. Yet these “old” hymns, relatively speaking, are more modern than classic, with virtually all of them coming from the last quarter of Christian history.

My own view is that the Regulatory Principle is sound, but we should use critical discernment in declaring something as “out-of-bounds”. Scripture gives us many guidelines, but not all are terribly specific. Let not the specificity come from man instead of the Bible. Men (elders) who base restrictions and regulations on their own tastes violate the very principle they seek to uphold.

Humorous Scripture

I am taking a couple days off both work and blogging for some mini family vacation. So today’s blog is a summer rerun. One of my earliest blogs was about humorous scripture passages. I offered one, and got a couple more through the comments. Since there are a fair number of new readers to this blog, I thought that perhaps I could get some additional contributions.

My offering (from May 15) was this:

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out. But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches." Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. And the evil spirit answered and said to them, "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Acts 19:11-16, NASB)

Woe to the unbeliever who dares to invoke the name of Jesus! The very evil spirit you are attempting to combat may beat you and rob you of your dignity.

Craig Schwarze contributed this verse:

If a liar and deceiver comes and says, 'I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,' he would be just the prophet for this people! (Micah 2:1)

And from Dawn, aka Ladydusk,

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

Have anymore? I need enough so that I can write a book! Come on people!

My next post will probably be on Thursday or Friday.

UPDATE
Mark Byron: Balaam's Donkey in Numbers 22:21-41.

Joel Garver: I've always been amused by Gideon's exchange with the Lord in Judges 6:17-18, particularly when Gideon says, "Wait here, will you, while I go get a present for you?" And the Lord says, "I'll wait til you get back."

Jason Steffens: The greatest pick-up line ever told: Song of Solomon 6:4.

Henry: "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." (Job 12:2)

R.W.: I like Paul's afterthought in Acts 26:29, at the conclusion of his hearing before King Agrippa: "I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am--except for these chains!"

And another from me: Abraham's bargaining for Sodom in Genesis 18:23-33.

Presuppositional Apologetics

Over the weekend, I posted this introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics over at blogs4god. If interested, read it there but leave your comments, if any here, as bogs4God is sans comments.

Preterism

Preterism is an interesting and growing (quietly, it seems to me) eschatological complement to either the amillennialism or, especially, post-millenialism. It is usually subdivided based on degree: either (hyper-preterism and preterism) or (preterism and moderate preterism). So if you encounter someone who claims to be a preterist, you need to probe a bit to see if they are of the strong or weak subspecies.

So that I am crystal clear, I will use the hyper and moderate adjectives and drop the ambiguous unmodified “preterist”, unless referring to both.

Preterists believe that all (hyper) or most (moderate) New Testament prophecy has already been fulfilled, culminating in 70 A.D. when Roman Legions invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. Hyper-preterists even believe that the Second Advent and the accompanying resurrection (of the saints) have already occurred and as such they have to interpreted much differently than orthodox Christianity has been teaching for 2000 years.

I myself have some preteristic leanings, although not enough that I would label myself even a moderate preterist. I have never been able to convince myself that any of the eschatological views is totally self-consistent with scripture—so in my own muddled (and also not totally self-consistent) picture of the end times, I accept some of the moderate preterist claims.

Preterists base many of their views on the difficulties found in Christ’s Olivet Discourse, especially as recorded in Matthew 24. I don’t have time for anything near a complete exposition of their position, but I can highlight a few points.

Here is an abridged version of the Olivet Discourse (from Matthew 24):

¹Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. ²And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down." ³ Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" ⁴And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. … ⁶And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. ⁷For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. ⁸All these are the beginning of sorrows. ⁹"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. … ¹⁴And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. ¹⁵ "Therefore when you see the "abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), ¹⁶"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains… ²¹For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be… ²⁸For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. ²⁹ "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. … ³⁴Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

The Olivet Discourse contains timelines, apocalyptic prophesy, and descriptions of the fulfilling of prophesy. In some sense, Preterists and dispensationalists choose opposite hermeneutics: The preterists take the time references literally and the apocalyptic descriptions as imagery, while the dispensationalists do the reverse.

The preterist views the Olivet Discourse as a continuous exposition on a single time period: from the time Christ spoke the words to about one generation (40 years) later (when some of those present would still be alive). The terminus of the discourse’s prophesy is about 70 A.D., when the Temple was destroyed. To the preterist, this is no coincidence.

According to a preterist:

• In verses 1-2, Jesus is clearly referring to the destruction of the Temple.
  
  
• In verse 3, the disciples ask Him when will this happen, and the signs of his coming, and the end of the age. The question presupposes that these will happen at the same time. If this were a question based on a false premise (that these occurred at the same time) the Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding.
  
  
• Then the discourse describes the tribulation. This is taken to be the Roman invasion and atrocities that accompanied the destruction of the Temple. For some of the specific prophecies one can find support in the writings of Jewish historians such as Josephus. The eagles of verse 28 refer to the Roman standards.
  
  
• Things start to get dicey in verse 29, given that it begins with the pesky work immediately. The astronomical phenomena are not supported in history, so verse 29 must be viewed as “eastern” style symbolism.
  
  
• To the hyper-preterist, the second advent and resurrection described in verses 30-31 is the real thing. To a moderate preterist, these are not the events but likened to them and signifying not the end of times but the end of an age. To all preterists, what happens in these verses is spiritual only.
  
  
• The preterist stride is regained in verse 34, which is taken in its plain reading: all these things will happen within a generation (~40 years). Some of the deciples present when Jesus is giving the Olivet Discourse will still be alive.

In summary, preterists believe that the Olivet Discourse was describing events that would occur not in the distant future but in the first century. The apocalyptic aspects of the Olivet Discourse did not refer to the end times, but the end of an age: the age of Judiasm. To the preterist (of any degree), the destruction of the temple was a major event in redemptive history that has been largely ignored by most Christians.

A few more things on my mind...

• First, A general comment about movies. Movies like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings don’t bother me at all, and I have no trouble letting my 12 year old see them. The battle is over and the good guys won: … greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4).

I do want to mention one awful movie: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s apocalyptic End of Days. I saw that movie because I read the book, which was just as bad. But the book had one great line that I wanted to see in the movie. And guess what—they didn’t put it in the film. I watched it for naught.

The line I really loved (and this will be from memory so don’t quote me) was in the scene where Arnold’s character fights the devil in his (Arnold’s) high-rise apartment, which is on at least the 20th story. Eventually Arnold pushes, or throws, the devil out and he falls from this great height and lands spread-eagled on a car, smashing it. Of course, he gets up, unharmed, and walks away. In the book, there was a man standing by the car and when the devil gets up the man is astounded and says “That was some fall!” The devil, nonplussed, wipes dust off his shirt and replies, “I’ve had worse.” Great line—and they left it out. Must have thought nobody would get it. Maybe they didn’t get it.

• Just a clarification from yesterday’s post. I wrote about a bible study public school text book from 1954. I didn’t actually use the text book, I bought it at a church book sale. Even though I have clothes older than some of my fellow moderators at blogs4God, I’m not that old. (Not that there is anything wrong with being that old.)

• I also wrote a bit about lust yesterday, and in thinking about it some more I decided to add some comments regarding this famous verse:

but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:28, NASB)

This verse is often misinterpreted as teaching that lusting after a woman is the same as committing adultery. It doesn’t say that, and it doesn’t mean that. It’s not my intention to diminish the fact that lust is a sin, and the scriptures liken it to committing adultery in your heart, but that is not the same as committing actual adultery. A man who has lusted after five women in the course of a marriage is not the same as a man who committed actual adultery with five women. If lusting, vile as it may be, were truly as heinous as adultery, then it too would be legitimate grounds for divorce and most likely all Christian marriages could be terminated with impunity.

The Witch of Endor

We read in 1 Samuel, chapter 28:

³ Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had removed from the land those who were mediums and spiritists. ⁴ So the Philistines gathered together and came and camped in Shunem; and Saul gathered all Israel together and they camped in Gilboa. ⁵ When Saul saw the camp of the Philistines, he was afraid and his heart trembled greatly. ⁶ When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets. ⁷ Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor." ⁸ Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, "Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you." ⁹ But the woman said to him, "Behold, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off those who are mediums and spiritists from the land. Why are you then laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?" ¹⁰ Saul vowed to her by the LORD, saying, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing." ¹¹ Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me." ¹² When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul." ¹³ The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth." ¹⁴ He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. ¹⁵ Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do." (1 Sam. 28:3-15)

This passage is always troublesome. If there is a majority position on this it is: it wasn’t really Samuel but either trickery or the work of Satan. I am not so sure.

Reading the passage carefully it does appear that the so called “Witch of Endor” saw Samuel, but Saul did not. That is compelling evidence of a hoax.

On the other hand, in the conversation between Saul and Samuel that ensues, the scripture reads as if the words are Samuel’s, as in verse 15 above. And the converstion is meaningful, and Samuel's words appear to be accurate. Why didn’t the writer clarify that it wasn’t really Samuel?

Interestingly, Greek writers refer to her as a ventriloquist.

I would summarize that there are four possibilities:

1. The Witch of Endor was a fraud and this is garden variety trickery. But how did she “invent” such meaningful words for Samuel? Perhaps Saul’s desperate state, rendered unto him because of his sinfulness, was well known.
   
   
2. It was the work of Satan. Still trickery, but supernatural trickery. Maybe the Witch was also a fraud, which would liken her to Whoppi Goldberg in Ghost. Her own surprise at “Samuel’s” appearance would contribute to her agitated state. Or maybe she was not a fraud but a long term minion of Satan. However, why then is the scripture unclear, and why doesn’t the apparition appear to Saul?
   
   
3. It really was Samuel, whose spirit was summoned against his will by the power of Satan. There is no indication elsewhere that Satan has this power, and if he did you would think he would use it regularly.
   
   
4. It really was Samuel, and God, in His purpose, sent Samuel’s spirit. But again, why didn’t Saul see him?
   

To me, the last explanation is the best at fitting both the immediate data and the rest of scripture. It attributes whatever supernatural power was present to God. It also best explains the conversation between Samuel and Saul.

It is all rather confusing. But like I have written before (but not for a while), a wise pastor once told me: it’s not the things I don’t understand in the Bible that keep me awake, but the things I do understand.

One thing is for sure: do not mess around with spiritists and their ilk. Even if they (as is likely) are frauds, you are messing in an area in which God has explicitly forbidden us to tread.

---

On my mind...

• Sadly, there is still no recent sign of Jeffrey Collins or update on his condition. Last night we prayed for him at our church. I hope that many of you are doing likewise.

• The issue of public school antagonism toward Christianity is a recurrent theme in blogdom, most recently here. This reminded me of a book I have—which I may have written about before. However with no archive search feature (a serious flaw when combined with a failing memory) there is no palatable way to check. Anyway, this book is titled Bible Study Course (Old Testament) Here is a sample question: What was the last thing that happened to the Tabernacle and its furniture? Now, the punch line of this story is the intended audience for this book: it was a text book for the Dallas Public Schools, at least as late as 1954. On the inside cover it is written: Authorized by the Board of Education, September 14, 1954. There is a preface from the Superintendent of Schools describing the history of the plan of offering an accredited course in Bible study. Dallas public schools—remarkable. My how times have changed.

• This next topic is not R rated, but it is about our old enemy, lust. Now I have never blogged about anything related to sex. Partly because my 12 year old son sometimes reads my blog and partly because my wife advised me to “stick to subjects you know something about.” Anyway, I was driving home yesterday, pondering a Ganns Deen post (I couldn't find the permalink, it's his July 30 post-- watch out for the bilnking man) that reminded us of the Biblical instruction to flee from temptation. Then my thought process stopped in midstream because my eyes caught sight of a very attractive jogger as she went past the car. A friend once told me that he feels “Okay” with seeing an attractive woman and admiring her beauty as long as the mental imagery stops there—no further speculation allowed. I guess that is reasonable, and that was the case with jogger, but I still feel uneasy. I am thinking about making a covenant with my eyes as in Job 31:1, but covenants are serious business. Any advice?

• The other thing I was thinking about was time. In this post Mark Byron writes:

God and Heaven are trans-time, existing outside of our space-time universe

Now I am not disagreeing with Mark, but I have a general question. I constantly read about God not being linear with respect to time, and being trans-time, etc. and I agree that it is quite likely true-- yet it is as if I am the only person for whom it is not manifest! Everyone seems to accept it uncritically, but I have not found any clear scriptural references. If you got ‘em, send ‘em. If God is longsuffering, then I think time and its passage is something in God’s universe. Not to mention that if we are to have physical bodies and walk around, well then our motion will still be governed by differential equations with time as the independent variable, won’t it? (That was mostly tongue-in-cheek.) Things will certainly be interesting. Our direction of time (just one way: we age) has a lot to do, so it seems, with the second law of thermodynamics which in turn is related to the irreversibility of processes. For example, if you see a movie of a glass of water on a table and ice cubes start forming in the water, you can be sure the movie is running backwards. (If it lasts six hours, you can also be reasonably sure it was an award winning Ingmar Bergman flick.) Time’s arrow is related to irreversibility-- which is related to decay, and there is no decay in heaven, so something will be wonderfully different about time. With this I agree.

• Finally, I have signed on with the good folks at Blogs4God as the moderator for apologia. As I told them privately, I feel like an interloper who joined up after all the work was done. Like Caesar’s son arriving at the scene of the completed battle at the beginning of Gladiator. I am truly delighted to be on board with this talented group of Christians.

---