Original Sin

Original Sin does not mean that God charges us Adam and Eve’s sin as if we had committed it. It is much worse than that. Original sin means that man’s very nature was radically altered by the fall.

A baby is not brought into the world in a state similar to Adam and Eve before the fall, only to begin some downward spiral as the sins start mounting. No, human beings are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are born sinners.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5, NIV)

Man’s relationship to sin is summarized in the following table:

1. Pre-fall man (Adam and Eve before the fall)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Able to not sin
     
   
   
2. Post Fall Man (Any person before being saved)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Unable not to sin
     
   
   
3. Reborn Man (Any person who is saved)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Able to not sin
     
   
   
4. Glorified Man (Any person in heaven)
   
   
   
   • Able to not sin
     
   • Unable to sin
     
   
   

The true meaning of Original sin is that we are born into the state that is similar to Adam and Eve after the fall. It is impossible for us not to sin.

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (Jer 17:9, NIV)

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. (Titus 1:15, NIV)

Not until conversion does God restore us to something similar to pre-fallen man. Of course, unlike Adam and Eve before the fall, we find ourselves in a totally corrupted world, and with corrupted bodies as our heritage, where temptation and examples of sin are everywhere. Although we have the ability “to not sin” (and to boldly split infinitives no man has split before) it usually doesn’t take us very long after conversion to commit our own original sin. By God’s Grace and Christ’s Sacrifice this doesn’t cause an entirely new fall from which we must time and time again be saved.

Are we, after conversion, exactly like pre-fall Adam and Eve? No. We are similar only in the fact that we can choose not to sin. The effects of our corruption are still with us.

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. (Rom. 7:23, NIV)

Fortunately, we look forward to a time when we be in an infinitely better state and place. A place where we will lose the ability to sin.

The question always arises as to whether God knew Adam and Eve would sin. The answer is, of course He did. God was not the author of their sin, but he knew they would fall. His redemptive plan was already in motion- believers were chosen before the foundations of the world.

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Rom. 11:32, NIV)

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph. 1:4, NIV)

Dead Faith

I am generating a post from a comment by Peter Sean Bradley to an earlier post. Peter wrote :

I realized that I was a Catholic when I was riding around in Tenth Grade during some Youth For Christ event and the YFC types could never stop talking about "faith." It seemed to me that talking about "faith" should end about ten seconds after it started, and the real focus should be on what you do thereafter. It didn't seem likely to me that God was going to base his decision on salvation entirely on what people said or thought, or thought they thought, but that what people actually did probably had something to do with who was saved or not saved.

This comment strikes at the core of one of the most pervasive problems in Protestantism (and one of my favorite stump issues): easy-believism. Say the words at a rally or an alter call and you are in. As you might expect, the recidivism rate for such people is very high.

I agree with what I infer to be the gist of Peter’s comment. I don’t think he was aiming for theological precision so I will skip a thorough analysis from a Calvinistic position in favor of a quick time-line clarification: The things you do that are meritorious (works) necessarily occur after salvation.

Necessarily in the preceding sentence has an important double application: meritorious works must follow conversion (whatever was done before, in the absence of Christ's righteousness, are but filthy rags - Isaiah 64:6) and they must happen if the faith is genuine. Most Protestants strongly agree that you cannot be a true believer in Christ without also being a disciple.

There is a minority position that there can be an indefinite delay-- that you can believe and remain carnal. Most Protestants rightly reject such a view. A new (true) believer’s faith will simultaneously result in discipleship, albeit (usually) immature and undeveloped.

Peter also wrote:

I do believe in the importance of man being freely able - and actually required to exercise his freedom - to respond to the grace that God undeservedly gives man.

Those in support of altar calls and similar mass-market methods for “getting” people to accept Christ acknowledge that many of the partakers are not genuine. They counter the criticism by saying it is worth it to reach the few genuine believers. (And if many go their entire lives with a false sense of assurance, well that may be cruel but in the larger view of eternity what does it matter?) And, they say, if you tell them the whole story, that accepting Christ brings along with it a requirement of discipleship, well you might scare them away.

Peter’s testimony counters this argument. He was turned off not because he was offered a too difficult faith, but one that was too simple.

Peter, Peter, Peter, if you only stopped there! But you go on to write:

Now, to a Calvinist this probably means that I'm predestined to Hell because I have been foredained from the beginning not to have the right kind of faith. I don't know. Down the road someone might be saying show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works.

I think you might be mistaking Calvinism with Fundamentalism. First of all, the easy-believism is not an issue among Calvinists. If you attend a Reformed Church you won’t get a chance to come up to the altar and say the Sinner’s Prayer and be given the secret handshake. Your comments, until this last passage, were directed at practices of non-Calvinistic Protestants (which is why it was so easy for me to agree!) So why the sucker punch thown our way?!

I don’t know of any Calvinist who would say you are predestined to hell because you are a Catholic. (Again, are you thinking of Fundamentalists?) They would say you are in a church with serious errors in its teachings, but that without question there are saved Catholics. Likewise there are professing Calvinists, who should recognize from their dead faith, that they have no assurance of salvation.

Calvinists love the book of James.

Hmm… sounds like that has bumper-sticker possibilities.

Rise to the Defense of Calvinism!

Kevin Holtsberry is questioning some of the Calvinistic doctrines. All those interested in such debates are directed here.

Baptism of the Spirit

The Holy Spirit regenerates the walking dead. This fortunate gift is given to those God has predestined for mercy. Once dead in sin, by the power of the Spirit they are converted to life in Christ.

The Baptism of the Spirit empowers believers with other gifts so that they can carry out God’s work. They can witness, teach, preach, serve, etc.

These are two separate actions of the Spirit.

For Christ’s disciples, these two events occurred at well separated times. They were first believers (so that had been converted) and later, after Christ’s Ascension, they received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

John explains, at least in part, why these distinct events were also separated in time:

³⁸Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." ³⁹By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:38-39)

The controversy today between Charismatic and non-Charismatic views is not about the existence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The debate centers around its timing.

If you read John 7:39 as referring to Spirit Baptism which was to come at Pentecost, then the gap during the apostolic period had a reason: the baptism had to wait until Jesus had been glorified (why? I don't know). This particular delay between regeneration and baptism (of the spirit) is obviously unique to the apostolic era. For all subsequent generations, Christ is already glorified, and there is no apparent need for a gap between regeneration and spirit baptism. The very fact that John describes the delay, and goes to the trouble of giving a reason for it, suggests to me that the delay is a special, not an ordinary circumstance.

Some (not all) Charismatic denominations accept this delay as normative for all ages. If so, a distinct, identifiable Spirit baptism is expected, and its prolonged absence ultimately affects (despite, in some cases, warnings that it shouldn’t) one’s assurance of salvation.

I don’t read the Bible as teaching that regeneration and spirit baptism are still separated in time. To me, John 7 instructs us that a universal delay was for the apostolic age only. I think if the delay were something that all believers were to expect, the writers of the New Testament would have gone to great lengths to associate such a watershed event with assurance of salvation.

That does not mean that I don’t think it could happen. God will do what He wills for His purpose. I think the evidence is that it is not normative, and I pray for those in Charismatic churches who have not had a genuine experience, including those that have had fraudulent experiences. Do not be anxious for something that has not been promised (a distinct, identifiable Spirit Baptism) as part of God’s plan of salvation. You are likely waiting for something you already received when you were regenerated.

I have learned something about Catholics

I think I have learned something significant about the difference between Catholics and Protestants. It corrects a misunderstanding of mine. What I learned is no doubt old hat to the rest of the world, but it is new to me. And the insight is due to blogdom’s unique type of interaction. I doubt I would have grasped it without the unprecedented ability to hold thoughtful discussions with Catholics.

Two asides before I launch into the substance of this post:

• I think what makes blogdom unique is the effort required to make a post. It is much more that a chat response, but much less than a polished article. Chat responses are spontaneous, unwashed reactions that are good for communicating small bits of information, but not good for developing larger concepts. Articles demand a proper amount of reflection yet, like a blog, most of that is way up-front. The rest of the time is spent on non-substantive tweaking and dealing with the vagaries of publishing. Blogs are just right. The good ones demonstrate thoughtful reflection, good writing, yet a concession to expediency.
  
  
• As always, by Catholics and Protestants I mean the conservative Bible believing variety. I don’t know what the liberals of each group actually think, or even if they actually do think. They (the repulsive Bishop Spong comes to mind) are good for naught but sport.

Okay, here is what I have learned, pay attention: The seat of the papacy is the antichrist. Just kidding! I am in a bit of a silly mood, sorry.

The insight I have had (again, it is most likely a belated epiphany) has to do with what bugs one group about the other. I assumed that each had different side of the same coin as their most important point of departure. I am now reasonably convinced that each is most concerned about different sides of different coins. Protestants (well, at least this Protestant) are (rightly, honorably, and justifiably) still most concerned with Rome’s denial of Justification by Faith Alone (sola fide) and the unconscionable anathemas placed on the Reformers at the Council of Trent. The thing that bugs Catholics (at least those I’ve been talking to) most is the Protestant proclamation of Scripture Alone (sola scriptura) and the fact that is linked to the dreaded Private Interpretation.

Sola fide and sola scriptura are both important aspects of the Reformation, and are quite related. Nevertheless, the button to push for a Protestant tends to be sola fide, and for a Catholic, it is sola scriptura (and Private Interpretation).

Protestants believe that scripture is inerrant, inspired, and sufficient, and that the church does not have a legitimate claim to bind a believer either through its own interpretation or extra-scriptural revelation. Catholics do not like the sufficient attribute.

Many of the questions asked by Catholics are legitimate technical questions such as:

• Don’t you really have a form of church tradition but you just don’t admit it?
• How do you decide what is scripture? (i.e., what about the Apocrypha?)
• What Bible translation should you use?
• Can you self-referentially support sola scriptura via sola scriptura?

Good questions, none of which I will answer here, at least in this blog.

Actually I will say something about church tradition because it is one of the things most misunderstood about sola scriptura. It is not that we don’t have church tradition—we surely do. The difference is that we hold that it cannot bind the conscience. Sola scriptura does not mean that every Protestant must start with a clean page and write in his own theology by reading nothing but the Bible. That would be foolish. In addition to scripture, one’s theology is developed by parents, children, Sunday School, Sermons, peers, mentors, elders, other books, the world, nature, everything.

Sola scriptura means that you put everything you can to the simple test: Is this based on scripture alone? In carrying out the test you might still use other resources, but only as they are helpful in addressing the question of scriptural support.

No matter how much I admire a pastor or writer, I test what they are telling me against scripture. That is Private Interpretation. It does not mean I develop all doctrine by myself, locked in a room with only the Bible. I do my homework. I try to start with an open mind. I read what others have written on the same subject—both those that agree with where I am heading and those that don’t. I talk to people. I pray. But when all is said and done, I accept not what I want to believe and not what others want me or tell me to believe, but what I honestly believe I have discerned from scripture.

What seems to be unfathomable to Catholics is the nonchalant way in which we accept the inevitable: intelligent, well intentioned believers will reach different conclusions. Right from the start Luther and Calvin had disagreements. Across the spectrum of evangelical churches there are different views on baptism, the Lord ’s Supper, predestination, etc. It’s the old: In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity approach.

Now the things I mentioned are not non-essentials in all aspects. The Lord ’s Supper is mandated by Christ. A church that doesn’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper is an apostate church. However, God has chosen not to make it absolutely clear to us precisely what happens during the sacrament/ordinance. So most Protestants (not all, one can never say all) are not overly ruffled by the fact that there are different views.

The fact that we can agree to disagree (by no means always peacefully, but in theory anyway) on important concepts is utterly un-Catholic. That is why Private Interpretation rattles the cage of Catholics the way a denial of sola fide rattles ours.

That is the obvious thing I learned recently. The hot button issue is different for Catholics and Protestants. Not very earth-shattering, I readily admit.

20 Somethings

This is the season of discontent among the twenty-somethings in regards to church. They don’t like the rules, the hierarchy, legalistic tithing, buildings, building funds, committees, spiritual deadness, the abandonment of a social agenda, etc.

There is nothing new under the sun. These young adults are not saying anything we didn’t say in our time. The season of their discontent is perennial. The only difference is that we forty-somethings now find ourselves in the role of conservatives rather than reactionaries. Their vantage point is much more fun.

This is a sort of open letter to those twenty-somethings, at least those who accept scripture as the inerrant word of God. If we don’t agree on that we have no basis from which to discuss other areas of concern. If you don’t believe the Bible, or if you think the New Testament stops after the four gospels, then I would like to have another discussion with you, but not this one.

So my premise is that you believe the Bible, but you see the modern church as being an invention of man which is failing miserably at doing God’s work, or at least your problem with today’s church is something along those lines. You seek something fresh, something that is true to God’s plan without the smothering oppressiveness that comes with today’s overly institutionalized church.

Attitude of Platitude

Let me get my requisite forty-something platitudes, which you will scoff at, out of the way. If you completely break from the traditional church scene and start something “new”, it will run for a while on its novelty and your youthful exuberance. It may last the better part of a generation. But slowly it too will institutionalize. Rules will develop. Agendas will diverge. Ad hoc leaders, in areas where none were intended, will emerge. In a shorter time than you can imagine your own kids will feel oppressed in your no-longer-new church. You will be the "youth" for only about ten more years, and that is stretching it.

That is not to say that you do not have legitimate gripes—you do. My plea to you is that you use your youthful energies to reform from within. Speak out loudly in areas where the church is falling short, or being legalistic, or not ministering to the community. At the same time listen to the older folk. Sometimes traditions stem from stubbornness, sometimes from wisdom.

Let’s look at some of the things that I am hearing you don’t like.

Heirarchy

The modern church model is almost always some variant of a pastor, elders, and deacons. Some churches (e.g., Brethren) do not have a pastor but a group of elders.

Can church hierarchy be abused? Absolutely—maybe even often. Does that mean its wrong? No it means as fallen creatures we must be diligent in watching for corruption. You can play that role in your church. Does that mean we discard it because egalitarianism sounds like a better approach? No, not if a hierarchy is Biblically mandated. Read Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. These list the requirements for being an elder. An elder is not, as I have read in one of the threads recently, “just being older”. The Bible doesn’t have to give requirements for getting older. An elder has some authority. Not absolute power, but some authority. Can you read Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 with an open mind and conclude otherwise?

Because we don’t like someone lording over us do not make the mistake that God could never have ordained such a burden, that it is all legalism. Read the Bible. Leave your church when it steadfastly refuses to do what is biblical, not when it insists on doing so.

I think the Bible has support for the model of a professional pastor. Paul’s instruction to Timothy is a big part of that. Paul also makes it very clear in 1 Corinthians:

In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:14, NIV).

There is an important qualification here: those who preach the gospel should be paid. If your pastor is not preaching the gospel, and refuses to do so, then it is time to leave that church (or fire the pastor.) Your church should be a mission to the community and even to its members, some (many?) of whom are not saved.

Rules

Rules are also a pain. Who makes them? Well if God makes them then they are not to be questioned, just obeyed. If man makes them then by all means feel free to challenge them. There are rules in the Bible for the worship service. Some are very difficult to understand and controversial. My point here is not to discuss, for example, the true meaning of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, but only to point out that however they are interpreted they sure look and smell like rules, so it must be that it pleases God that the worship service is not freeform.

Legalism

Here you are on very solid ground, as long as you don’t include in legalism (which we are warned about) the biblically ordained hierarchy and biblically ordained rules. Strict tithing (see the discussion in Rachel's Journal and the fascinating comments) is legalistic—the New Testament clearly teaches that God doesn’t want your offering if is given as a work rather than a cheerful sacrifice. All kinds of legalistic minutiae work their way into churches like parasites: Acceptable styles of music, clothing, food, drink, Bible translations, etc. Be vigilant against legalism but, as much as possible, identify it and work to reform from within.

Spiritual Deadness

This is a huge problem in many churches and often you are the solution. The youth make an invaluable contribution in this area. In our church, the youth are out and about in the community witnessing in a reckless abandon than is beyond the capabilities of the older folk. Our youth evangelize in the streets and the malls (from which they get kicked out) and their testimonies invigorate and inspire the older members of the church. It is what they contribute to us. If your church is dead, work to quicken it. If a church is dying and the youth leave, they have killed the church by abandonment.

Social Activism

This is a very challenging area. I agree that one of the great failings of the modern American church is that it has abdicated its role in feeding and caring for the needy to the government. At the same time, conservative evangelical churches are typically politically conservative as well (in the U.S.). So we love to complain about big government and bloated welfare but we are seemingly happy that we don’t have to do anything about it. We should be saying to the government, you don’t have to feed the poor because as we once took care of the problem, we will do it again. Lobby for church monies to be used to help the poor. There are many ways this can be worked, and this is a mission field that, due to its neglect, is crying for fresh leadership. You can fill that role. You may be surprised how much support you’d get from the rest of us.

Whew!

I’ll probably write more on this later—but I am out of words for the moment!

---

UPDATE: see posts by 20-somethings Brianna Leone and Joshua Claybourn
UPDATE 2: See the post by another 20-something Mike Congrove

Naaman the Syrian Leper

²⁵But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; ²⁶but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. ²⁷And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."(Luke 4:25-27) Jesus caused an uproar at the beginning of His ministry when He spoke at the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth. So incensed were the Jews that they forcefully led Jesus to a cliff outside of town for the purpose of murdering Him.

When He began to speak at at the synagogue in Nazareth, as recorded earlier in Luke 4, Jesus stated that He had come to fulfill the Messianic prophesy of Isaiah. Luke wrote:²¹And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." ²²So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, "Is this not Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:21-22) This would appear to indicate that when Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and then proceeded to teach, the Jews were not outraged; indeed they marveled at his eloquence. However when he spoke of Zarephath and Naaman they became filled with wrath and dragged Him from the synagogue.

Let’s take a quick look at one of these Old Testament stories: Naaman the Syrian leper (2 Kings 5:1-19).

Naaman was a sworn enemy of Israel and a commander in the army of the King of Syria, in whom he found great favor. Naaman had taken a Jewish wife; a young woman captured during a raid into Israel.

Naaman was also a leper. His Jewish bride told him of a Samarian prophet who could heal his leprosy. With the king’s blessing, Naaman took letters of introduction and silver, gold, and clothing as gifts and journeyed to Israel. Eventually Naaman met Elisha, who instructed him to wash seven times in the Jordan. Naaman, after some persuasion, did so and was cleansed. He vowed to worship the God of Israel from that day forward. Elisha refused the gifts offered by Naman.

What triggered the anger of those listening to Jesus teach? After all this was a well known story to the Jews in the synagogue.

What angered the Jews was the coupling of this story to Jesus’ Messianic proclamation. The message was clear:

1. He was the Messiah, He came to free the captives (c.f. Luke 4:18-19).
   
   
2. This salvation would be for the Gentiles and Jews alike, and not for the Jews universally, for there were ‘many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.’
   
   
3. Salvation would be by the grace of a Sovereign God, for Naaman’s cleansing was not a reward for anything he had done, but a gift to an unlikely and unworthy recipient. To make it absolutely clear that works were not involved, even Naaman’s offering was refused. (In an interesting twist, some of Naaman’s money and clothing was surreptitiously accepted by Elisha’s servant Gehazi, who ended up getting Naaman’s leprosy as a punishment for his greed.)

The Jews didn’t mind hearing Jesus claim that He was the Messiah. They wanted someone, anyone to free them from Roman tyranny. Yet when He taught the He had come not to free a nation from occupation but to free His people, including Gentiles, from their uncleanliness, they wanted to kill him. It is an interesting “mini gospel encapsulation” contained in just a few passages from Luke 4.

Mail Call

One on my very first posts was on What is A Christian¹. The post contained a list of Christian essentials, including the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture. After the list, there was a paragraph with the heading Axiomatic Christianity. The paragraph began with my recollection of a physics professor who taught Relativity axiomatically, by starting with the axiom: vacuum is vacuum and then deriving all the necessary concepts and equations. I then wrote:

I believe Christianity lends itself to an axiomatic approach, and the proper axiom is the first item in the list [of Christian essentials] above, restated here:

AXIOM: The Bible is the inerrant and sufficient inspired word of God.

The idea being that all the items in the list of essentials are derivable from the axiom.

Months later, a reader has taken me to the shed over that post². He wrote:

Dear David,

Your first absolute (the inerrant and sufficient inspired word of God) you posit as being the axiom of Christianity from which the other absolutes are "derivable". This way of apprehending Christian truth is thoroughly and deeply wrong. Christianity does not, as you claim, lend itself to an axiomatic approach; such an approach leads inevitably to a deficient understanding of Christianity.

First of all, the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture is not, in any sense, the axiom of Christianity. The starting point of Christianity is the mighty acts of God in human history: the call of Abraham; the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt; the giving of the Law; and above all the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Next in importance after these historic acts of God is the establishment by Him, through those acts, of the people of God: the people of Israel in the Old Covenant and the Church, the new Israel, in the New Covenant. Next in importance is the faith, witness, and experience of the people of God. Finally, out of that faith and experience, as a product of the covenant relationship with God, and in witness to the acts of God, the Holy Scriptures were produced. Outside of the covenant which produced the Scriptures, it is not possible to discern their message or receive their meaning.

You cannot treat the Holy Scriptures as a repository of seed data from which theological truths can be derived by intellection. Christianity is not a matter of belief in the sense of intellectual assent and knowledge; it is a relationship of the heart with Jesus Christ, it is belonging to His Body the Church, and it is the acquisition of His gift of the Holy Spirit. What Christ offers us you can never know by the intellect; you can only know it by experience. And it is not knowing facts or affirming principles that matters, but knowing a Person.

In Christianity, it is the only-begotten and immortal Word of God that is primary, not the written word. Look to Islam or Mormonism for a religion where the written word is truly primary. It is telling that none of the historic creeds of the Church teaches what, for you, is the axiom. Neither the Apostle's Creed, nor the Nicene Creed, nor the decrees of the ecumenical councils, mention belief in the Bible, as such, as an article of faith. Not until the sixteenth century is this "axiom" mentioned, in the Protestant confessions. It is surprising that the Church waited fifteen centuries to articulate explicitly what is thought to be the axiom of the entire faith.

Note that I am not denying the inspiration or the inerrancy of Scripture; but I am saying that to place it at the base of an intellectual system is unworthy of the fullness of the faith. The way to Christian truth is to hear the proclamation of the Gospel; to submit oneself, heart, soul, and intellect, to Christ as King and God; to flee to the apostolic Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth; to receive proper catechesis, in which the authentic tradition of the Church is imparted to one, heart to heart; to be born again through the waters of Holy Baptism; to participate fully in the worship and life of the Church; and humbly to follow the way of salvation, coming into closer and closer union with Christ, and ultimately becoming a partaker of the divine nature. In the context of that life in Christ, in communion with and loyalty to the apostolic Church in every age, one may humbly offer one's finite and fallen intellect to help clarify the revelation of God for oneself or others; outside of that context, the intellect, trying to synthesize Christianity anew out of axioms and logic,
is doomed to failure. (emphasis added)

I replied to his email stating:

Dear [Reader],

I don't know how to respond, actually. I agree with most of what you wrote. I should have called it Axiomatic Christian Apologetics instead of Axiomatic Christianity. I did not mean to imply one could teach oneself to be a Christian. As for the historic creeds, everything in them is found in scripture, so with the above modification, I stand by what I wrote.

Actually, in rereading his email, there is much I disagree with. The main purpose of my reply was to concede the point that one cannot pick up a Bible and, with no divine intervention, intellectualize oneself into an authentic Christian.

To which he replied:

If you agree with most of what I wrote, then (a)I totally misunderstand your theological position or (b) I didn't make myself clear (or (c) both).

I think your axiom is wrong to such an extent that I was shocked to see it so baldly stated. To me it is a serious misunderstanding of the role of the Holy Scriptures in the life of the Church. It was unheard of before the Reformation.

It is true that everything in the creeds is found in Scripture; but the sufficiency of Scripture is not found in the creeds. There's a reason for that.

---

¹ Going back to your first week or so of blogging is like reviewing the first few episodes of a long running television series. The style is so different from what eventually jelled that it is almost unrecognizable.
²He is not the first reader to object to that post. In fact, given that I only had about 20 readers that first week, a relatively high percentage found it wanting. He is the first to object in a while, and the first to object so fully.

It's too HOT

Yesterday the temperature here in New Hampshire reached 98° F. New Hampshire! I was expecting snow by now.

Flashback to November, 2001:

Naïve Homebuyer moving from Southern Virginia: We like this house, but it doesn’t have air conditioning.

Real Estate Agent: (Condescendingly) You don’t need air conditioning in New Hampshire!

Anyway, that is my excuse for not writing on anything profound today. The heat, compounded by the fact that our study (well, the room with the computers) is the hottest place in the house.

I know, I shouldn’t complain. As I quoted (from memory, so quite unreliable) Mark Twain to my wife the other day: “Don’t tell people your problems; half of them won’t care and the other half will think you deserve them!”

The Lord’s Day

A long, long time ago I had a discussion with Jeffrey Collins (who obviously should still be in our prayers) about The Lord’s Day. At some point the fact that the Sabbath was “moved” from the seventh day to the first day was brought up. I remember stating that I thought what we called the first or seventh day was arbitrary.

What has been working in the recesses of my mind is the admission that I was inexcusably ignorant about how the change occurred. Or, more accurately, how a “new day” (the Lord’s Day) came to replace the Sabbath.

Apparently, both days were “holy” in the apostolic period. Paul preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath, but the early Gentile Christians worshiped on the first day, The Lord’s Day:

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. (Acts 20:7, NIV).

There is also an indication that Paul was defending this shift (and therby providing apostolic sanction) when he wrote:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Col. 2:16, NIV)

In 321 A.D. Constantine issued an edict recognizing The Lord’s Day as the one sacred to Christians (and instituted the long forgotten “blue laws” prohibiting commerce on the first day.) This was reinforced by both the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) and the Council of Laodicea (364 A.D.)

Hmm…

I once had an elder at a Presbyterian church who sort of melded the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day: he took his day of rest to extend for the 24 hours from sunset on Saturday to sunset on Sunday. What do you think of this? I always held the cynical view that he wanted to go for ice cream after the Sunday evening service, but didn’t think that was an appropriate Lord’s Day activity. His modified definition gave him that flexibility.

God's Providence

Light blogging today. I am taking the gang to Lake Winnipesauke. These random interruptions will continue until school begins.

The recurrent discussions on God being outside of time have been bouncing around inside my head. I have been thinking about various things: God’s Will, His Providence, chance, luck, man’s free will, God’s Sovereignty, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, pork belly futures, etc.

How do all these things fit together?

I don’t have a clue. I can only begin to grasp these things if I tackle them in bite-sized chunks.

I have blogged before about God’s Sovereignty and Will, and also about our free will. Today I will take a peek at God’s Providence.

In particular, I was curious as to whether or not God’s Providence is the same as God’s Sovereignty. No clear answer there, but I was able to muster a sense that the concepts, though related, refer to different things. Providence is the particular way God chooses to use His Sovereignty. Whether I can fully convey the distinction remains to be seen.

When I wrote of God’s Sovereignty, I discussed the three types of His Will: Decretive(that which He decrees—it will happen), Preceptive (that which He desires but doesn’t decree, such as our obedience) and Permissive (that which He permits, good or bad).

Providence is the combination of all forms of God’s Will along with His foreknowledge-- all working together to sustain creation. His foreknowledge includes knowing the state of our hearts at any instant. Our hearts control our desires, to which our free will is beholden. His doesn’t make us make choices, but He knows how we will choose.¹

Providence is the amazing amalgamation of these different aspects of God’s Sovereignty and foreknowledge that permit Him to govern the universe without violating man’s free will. The “factoring in” of our free will into God’s Sovereignty is called concurrence. Providence states that God chooses to use his Sovereignty to govern in a way that is sustaining, glorifying to Him and dignifying for us. His Sovereignty clearly accomodates other manners of governing; He chose the manner we call Providence.

Providence explains the amazing stories we all hear about resources from unexpected sources permitting glorifying work to go forward when all seemed lost. Providence explains how great good came from the great evil perpetrated against Joseph by his brothers.

In the likely event that I wasn’t cogent, allow me to cheat in my summation and simply quote the Westminster Confession²:

God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

---

¹ Including the fact that, apart from divine intervention, we will not choose Him.
² In reading the Westminster Confession, regardless of whether I am in agreement, I am always amazed at the quality, especially in terms of economy, of the writing.