One of the problems we have today is trying to find where we can get accurate information. We have the category of fake news. We have such nonsense as global warming. We have supposedly honest scientists talking about the missing links when they describe evolution. Everywhere you look there is deceit, compromise, spin, advertizing and whatever other words you want to throw in.
You would think that the one place you would find a real respect for truth is in the believing Christian community. You would think the truth would set up a standard in their hearts and minds and be expressed through their tongues. You would think you could go to a church that claims to be Bible believing and find truth being presented.
Sadly, that’s not the case.
Most of us are aware that many of the mega churches have drifted away from scripture. We know about the Progressive. We know about the new agers. We are aware of the deception that is going on. What we don’t like to admit is that same twisting and compromise is setting up a castle in the hearts of minds of people we think of as true believers.
Sometimes the deception is based on the fact that they’ve been taught wrong. They’ve been indoctrinated with a certain slant from a certain theological perspective, and they adapted. They repeated without thinking or searching the scripture for themselves. I think that’s almost universal across the church. And what is amazing is when you share with them something that is clearly stated and they say, “Well, it doesn’t mean that.”
Recently, I was watching a video that caught my eye because it said something to the effect of did Jesus really say, “Go and sin no more”? My first reaction is, “What a stupid question.” I’ve read it over and over again. I don’t know that I’ve ever researched the Greek, but I know what it says. How could there be any question? But evidently there is. The man putting on this podcast went down a long windy road, never getting close to a conclusion before I finally turned him off, but I could tell he was going to compromise on something. It is a basic statement of Jesus. Why define it into oblivion? Because he’s indoctrinated in the Calvinistic interpretation of Pauline theology and is incapable of getting beyond it. I’ve seen the same arguments when someone says the Bible does not say you’re saved by faith alone when it’s pointed out that the only place that phrases appears is in James where he is saying it’s not by faith alone. And again in some convoluted twisted way, they managed to turn that on its head.
No, I’m not talking about those people. They are not trying to deceive. They are not aware of their deception.
So whom am I speaking about?
Here’s where I come to my reading and discussions with King James Only (KJO) and Mid-Acts Dispensation (MAD) people. I first entered into my reading and discussing in good faith. I assumed that the commandment that we says not to bear false witness would be followed by them, even though it is under the law. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the way it works. I think I’ve expressed this before, but I want to say it again here. The two groups mentioned tend to take most scripture and put it in a special, inferior, it-doesnt-apply-to-us category and while they will admit it if you confront them, they continually hide it behind their vocabulary.
Let me give an example from frequent instances. There’s a word that Christians around the world assume means a certain thing. That word is “Bible”. You can be speaking in any language and they may have a different word for it but you know what they mean. It is a book that contains the words of God from Genesis to Revelation. These two groups have decided to redefine the word. When they say the word “Bible” what they mean is the 1611 translation of King James. They don’t reveal that, but that’s what they mean. There are subtle indicators like for instance they no longer talk about the KJV but instead the KJB. The difference to them is significant, but it’s no concern for us because we assume that the KJV is a Bible. We may not prefer it as our translation but we refer to it as a Bible. That courtesy is not extended the other way. If you don’t use the KJB, you are not reading the Bible. Anything you quote from another translation has very likely been distorted by Satan.
Do you think I joke? I wish I joked.
Stay alert. Many people want to confuse you.
homo unius libri
Welcome to Varied Expressions of Worship
This blog will be written from an orthodox Christian point of view. There may be some topic that is out of bounds, but at present I don't know what it will be. Politics is a part of life. Theology and philosophy are disciplines that we all participate in even if we don't think so. The Bible has a lot to say about economics. How about self defense? Is war ethical? Think of all the things that someone tells you we should not touch and let's give it a try. Everything that is a part of life should be an expression of worship.
Keep it courteous and be kind to those less blessed than you, but by all means don't worry about agreeing. We learn more when we get backed into a corner.
Opus 2026-056: Sad Situation
Opus 2026-031: KJO or MAD, part 2 of 3
Consistency and logic are not strong points with either the KJO or MAD positions. A good example is the teaching that the KJV is really the KJB and it has never changed since before it was translated.
The “B” is significant in KJB. I did not realize this until I had read about six of the books sent to me by my MAD friend. When a MAD writer or speaker speaks of the “Bible” he is talking about the original King James of 1611. No other translation need apply. Everything else is a document assembled by Satan to water down the truth handed down from 1611. Once I realized this I went back and scanned some of what I had read and realized that where I thought I had agreed I often did not because they used the words we all use but with their own special definition.
An example of their lack of logic is their reference to the 1611 King James. The problem is that the 1611 version was corrected at least four times. When you arrive in 1769 both Cambridge and Oxford had their editions. This is all well documented. I understand there are even lists you can get that itemize the corrections. Somehow in their jargon and reasoning none of these are revisions. They sometimes claim they were just spelling and punctuation errors. My problem with that explanation is it means that God does not know how to spell.
They believe they have a Bible verse that establishes this. The specific verse is,
Psalms 12:7 (KJV) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.To understand why I have trouble with what they say let me give you the context of the preceding two verses and then do a little grammar work.
(Psa 12:5 KJV) For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.The KJO people say that the “them” being kept and preserved are the “words” of verse 6. In English that might work but not in the Hebrew. Hebrew verbs have gender. If you look at this passage you see the verbs in verse 7, “keep” and “preserve”, do not match up with the noun, “words” in verse 6 but do match up to the nouns in verse 5, “poor” and “needy”. One other thing to consider is that the verse divisions were added later and were not in the original. I could be totally wrong. If you are a better Hebrew scholar than I am then I will stand corrected, but what this says to me is the it is the poor and needy God is promsing to keep. This is not a promise to preserve the word and if it would the preservation would not have been in 1611 English.
(Psa 12:6 KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(Psa 12:7 KJV) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
To be concluded...
homo unius libri
Opus 2025-531: The Divine Dewey Decimal System
As I read through different books of the Bible, I am struck by the different approach that God seems to have in each of them. I’m trying to work through Revelation and make sense of it. It is a real slog. For some reason I started working backwards through the Old Testament. I find Malachi very clear and very helpful. As I continued going back, Zachariah went back to the Revelation style of literature. We had horses of different colors patrolling the Earth. I think there was mention of something with many eyes. As I continued back, I got to Zephaniah and found it very straightforward and clear.
I got to wondering about this. Why in the world would a God who could make things so clear in one book make them so confusing in another. In a moment of humor I wondered if the book of Revelation was just something God threw together to entertain John while he was isolated on Patmos. You know, it could be the revelation was The Star Wars movie of the day. Somehow, I don’t think God works that way, but it did occur to me that just as different people prefer different styles of worship and choose their church because of that, it may be that some people are reached more effectively through one type of literature than another.
If you take me into a Pentecostal church, you may have to tie me down to keep me there. I’ve been around enough wild and crazy Pentecostals to know that I can’t take them seriously. When I’m not around them, I can accept the fact that they are worshiping God and that they are sincere. When I’m in their presence, I question those thoughts. At the other end, you have my stereotype of a Presbyterian. You might wonder if they ever feel any emotion or ever get excited about the things of the Lord.
In my sober moments, I simply think that these are different types of people. Some people are emotional. Some people are intellectual. That doesn’t mean that intellectuals don’t feel emotion or the emotional people don’t have serious thoughts, it just means that’s their basic personality type. Some of us are introverts. That doesn’t mean we don’t like people, it just means that we prefer our own company.
So it’s a thought I had this morning and I may even follow it up some more. We classify books of the Bible as history, law, prophecy, and so forth. It could be that there is a parallel classification that is simply a matter of God trying to get his message of salvation across to many different people.
At the same time I think that most of us can sing together,
Jesus loves me this I know,homo unius libri
For the Bible tells me so…
Opus 2025-109: Retreat
I’m listening to a Catholic podcast while I peel potatoes. It’s hosted by somebody named Matt Fradd and I’ve noticed him, but not really listened before. It was a fascinating experience.
Fradd and his guest started off talking about how this American is going to Australia to speak at a purity conference. He was talking about keeping yourself sexually pure, and so forth, and he was attacked by covens of witches.
It was interesting the way these men were talking like they were devout Protestant Christians, throwing in Catholic terminologies and jargon, but the vibrancy of the Holy Spirit in their lives was very real. It was a broadening experience to listen to.
They got off on the talking about one of the “saints” in Australia, a man I’ve never heard of and don’t know his story. Evidently he was being persecuted and was locked up in a prison, not allowed to say the mass, and given menial tasks. They talked about how, while sweeping the cells, he prayed for people that he could hear screaming in other places, and he made it a spiritual time being locked up there. Then they said this,
“He turned it into a retreat.”That thought made the listening worth while all by itself. How often do we look at hard times as persecution and hardship? I hope I never experience real persecution but I hope I have the maturity to use the time to get closer to the Lord, to turn it into a retreat. I guess a ridiculous example of that would be listening to faith building podcasts while I do menial chores like peeling potatoes.
homo unius libri
Opus 2024-437: Inter or Intra
I am looking at a note I made to myself on April 7, 2011. That is a long time ago by any measure. At the time I was listening to podcasts by a preacher named Marc Driscoll. He was, and still is, a strong voice for the gospel. His uncompromising voice offended many people. He was an unapologetic Calvinist. I have a very low opinion of Calvinistic doctrine. My thinking is in the Wesleyan tradition. In spite of that I considered him a brother in Christ.
Historically the Methodist church has closer positions to where I am at. The modern United Methodist Church has not only drifted away from Biblical truth but have left a scorched earth behind them. The church I was raised in seems to be traveling down the same road. It is a strange feeling when people you disagree with seriously are closer than those you grew up with.
The difference is their attitude toward the Bible and what it teaches. The Driscoll disagreement is in the family, the Methodists are seeking a divorce. It is like the difference between intramural and intermural. One is a sports program within the college. One dorm might play another in football. The other is between schools.
I pray that we would develop greater wisdom to see the difference and act like it made a difference.
homo unius libri
Opus 2024-407: Heresy Is Overvalued
I often make jocular comments about being a heretic. Being a true heretic is not a laughing matter. In areas of faith, being a real heretic can influence your eternal destiny. A real heretic will be rejected by God, mainly because he has rejected God. The key concept there is “by God.”
Heresy is usually defined by people with a specific theological perspective. Thus Calvin would consider Wesley a heretic if he were speaking honestly. And the same would go the other way. As a Calvinist I once had a great conversation with said to me, “There is only one truth, and we both can’t be right.” He meant it in a very loving way. He was truly regretful that I was on my way to hell because I did not agree with his theology. I can live with that.
The big question is what does God consider heresy. I think God has a lot more leeway than we want to acknowledge. One point that keeps coming up in my mind is how Christians define the word, “grace” and how, having read the apostle Paul, they reject any kind of effort on the part of human beings. Personally, I think they are the ones who are being heretical, because they reject so much of what the Bible teaches. The entire Old Testament is loaded with a sense of responsibility placed on individuals to be righteous instead of wicked.
At the same time the Old Testament does not say that your salvation is earned by your efforts. It is loaded with the knowledge that God is the ultimate source of salvation, and He is the one who awards salvation. The Old Testament is full of terms like faith, trust, loving kindness, mercy, and does not even begin to say you earn your own salvation.
And yet people reject the concept of law. In so doing, they risk the dangers of what is called antinomianism. Antinomianism rejects any kind of standard behavior that is expected of believers. Antinomianism says that you can go out and live in blatant sin just as long as you are one of the elect, and it makes no difference. They will say that’s not what they say, but it certainly sounds like it to me.
At the same time most of them tend to live very righteous lives. I’ve never figured out why. But I accept it. I think in their hearts they agree with me even if they can’t admit it in public.
They don’t want to be called heretics.
homo unius libri
Opus 2023-197: Headlines: Splits Appearing in the Banana
Is America starting to stand up? It is always a hope I have. One bit of positive movement I heard about was the departure of 5,000 congregations from the United Methodist Church. I saw it a few places and finally read it at Christian Post.
I has happened over the last two years. Evidently more would leave but some of the conferences are playing hard ball and telling them they can’t take their property with them. I don’t have much hope for denominations like the United Methodists but if the faithful in their midst will get moving they may have a chance to be part of the solution instead of supporting the problem.
A word on reporters and lack of reporting. One of the questions that came up was the total number of congregations in the UMC. The article did not say. Was 5,000 a significant number or a drop in the bucket? I did some searching and I think I came up with around 29,000 so the 5,000 that left was a large minority.
Good news. Maybe John Wesley can stop spinning in his grave.
homo unius libri
Opus 2023-032: Legos and Lutherans
Why do we have so many different denominations in Christianity? Let me give you two divergent thoughts.
The first cause could simply be ego. People want to consider themselves better than others. They want to be in charge. They want it done their way. So if the pastor won’t listen to your wisdom you start talking to your friends, pull out and start your own church. Recycle as needed. God can use even this nonsense but I don’t think it is His preferred way to change the world.
I think that we would have these divisions even if ego were not a problem. The God of the Bible is a real, living God. He is not a caricature that fits into any mold or pattern. He created us in His image which means we also tend to break the mold. That means He has to deal with us in a dynamic, ever versatile way. This creates different understandings of the same basic truths. We see truth through our personality and experience. That does not change the truth but does influence the way we understand it and apply it.
Picture the different ways to drive a car. You know there are different ways because you have probably followed my wife, or someone like her, driving to the same church. You start out on the same two lane road with a lot of curves. You will both get there but not the same way either in style or route.
Or picture trying to explain how a car engine works to two different people, one with a mechanical inclination and one into feelings. It would require two entirely different sets of lesson plans and the final understanding will vary.
Think of it as a case of Lego liberty. The building blocks are the same. The results may be very different. Some things cannot be done. They are all kind of Platonic attempts to express the ideal.
homo unius libri
Opus 2020-008: Headlines: Split
I thought the battle was over long ago but in the last official vote the governing body of the church voted to maintain the traditional position and reject homosexual marriage and ordination. If a split is to come it will be decided at the General Conference which begins on May 5. There are at least four plans for resolving the conflict. You can find those at the Methodist web site.
With the typical arrogance of the left everything seems to point that the Methodists holding to the traditional understanding of sex would be the ones to leave and start a new denomination. This is the way they look at it even though the Bible rejecting group is in the minority. If the split takes place it will bear watching for those looking for a church home. For me it will depend on their stand on abortion. We shall see.
I have always maintained that church splits are not necessarily a bad thing. They happen all the time on the local level. Sometimes they are based on simple arrogance and pride but often they come down to legitimate concerns. Sometimes when a church splits both offshoots die. Sometimes they both thrive. It remains to be seen what happens with the Methodists.
The Babylon Bee has a piece out on this entitled, “Untied Methodist Church to Split over Whether or Not to Be Christians.” It is amazing how much of the controversy they put into the satire.
homo unius libri
Opus 2017-344: Monday Pulpit: Dogma and the First Amendment
Other things are open to debate but demand a strong response. You are wrong if you abort your baby. You a stealing if you take handouts when you don’t need them. You are going to hell by any path but Jesus.
I am also in favor of expressing opinions. I will express mine. I would be a better person if you would express yours. How do you expect me to be enlightened if you don’t care enough about me to lead me to the truth? Of course that goes both ways. What got me going down this dangerous path was a statement by the pastor in a church I attended a few weeks ago. This is a paraphrase but close enough for reference.
“When it comes to doctrine we are not only allowed to make a strong statement, we are required to do so. It is not judgmental.”It was a Presbyterian Church and the pastor was wearing a robe so I did not shout, “Amen”. There were even people there who had on coats and ties so I did not run the aisles waving my hanky.
The church was also loaded with Calvinists so I had to be careful. There were times in history when being an Arminian around a bunch of Calvinists could get you burned at the stake. I was worshiping with a bunch of people that I had deep disagreements with. I can do that. There are a few issues that bring my blood to a boil but I can live with that because they have the basics down. We agree to disagree, or at least I do.
So preach it, brother. It may have to do with the TULIP system. If you don’t know what that is then you are not a graduate of a Calvinist seminary. It may have to do with tax rates. It could be that you hate Trump. Say it loud and clear.
I may need to straighten you out, unless you are a Calvinist. Calvinists are hopeless. Brothers in Christ, but hopeless.
homo unius libri
Opus 2017-331: Is the Pope a Catholic?
Instapundant had a link to a Catholic site that was calling Pope Francis to account for some of his statements about marriage, sexuality and family. They seem to feel like he is opening the doors to people who might pursue heretical positions.
They tried to walk the line of loyal opposition.
“The signatories stress they are not accusing the Pope of formal heresy...”At the same time it is clear they see the logical progression of some of the pope’s warm and fuzzy social agenda.
The Biblical standards on marriage and the place of sexual activity in marriage are watershed. If we continue to drift down this road the consequences will be culturally shattering. I might be good if the pope would get on board with the Nashville Statement. If you have never heard of the Nashville Statement you might be advised to take a look. That is really important if you attend a church with the word “united” in your name.
homo unius libri
Opus 2015-370: Discernment Watch: Slight of Hand Labels
They were playing sound bites from Trump’s appearance at the Iowa meeting from previous weeks. I think I wrote about it before. The question was about whether he had ever asked God for forgiveness and he went off on a praise moment for Norman Vincent Peale. It was pretty obvious that either he did not understand the question or he was trying to avoid it.
What Beck and his sidekicks were getting at was that Trump had no idea what Christianity was all about. They felt it was a deliberate attempt to sound religious when he isn’t. They felt like it was pandering to the Christians in the crowd.
First, I think it was obvious to anyone with a real faith in Jesus that Donald Trump is not a Christian. He might have actually gone to church. He may have really enjoyed the sermons of Peale. He might even try to do good. But he clearly is not a Christian. There are certain clear indicators of being a Christian or not. People who reject the clear teachings of the Bible on the physical resurrection, eternal damnation, sexual morality and marriage my call themselves Christians but they are practicing what Orwell calls “newspeak” or the post moderns call “deconstruction”. It is like me calling myself a great golfer. I may have the clubs, I may have the shirt, I might have the money but I don’t have the swing.
Second, it is amusing to hear Mormons accusing Trump of deception when he calls himself a Christian. Mormons are not Christians. They may be wonderful neighbors, fine employees, great parents and patriots, but they are a cult, not a denomination.
As I have said, I don’t like Trump for president but I am enjoying his contribution to the season. He is forcing issues that need to be addressed. He is openly declaring that the King has no clothes. For that I thank him and give him credit. But he is not a Christian. On that score I just smile and shake my head and wonder how many gullible people there are. I want to thank him but I don’t want to vote for him for reasons that have nothing to do with being a Christian.
homo unius libri
Opus 2015-189: Links: A Catholic view of the Pope
I enjoy it when a self-identified Catholic agrees with me. You would not expect religious commentary on a gun blog like Gun Free Zone, but I think this one is quotable.
“I guess we Catholics are stuck with a Pope that is more intent on being 21st Century hip than actually tending to the spiritual needs of the flock. Instead of the Rock in which Church is built, we go[t] a pontoon to a Party House Boat.”I could not have said it better but I will try later.
homo unius libri
Opus 2014-257: Monday Pulpit: Communion
I remember Jesus every morning when I literally “break bread.” This morning I had a thought, based on the passage in I Corinthians.
(1 Corinthians 11:23-24 NAS77) For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."Jesus gave thanks before He taught us to remember Him with communion. He gave thanks knowing what was ahead of Him. He was thankful facing the cross.
We have a lot of issues and difficult moments but I don’t think any of them come close to what Jesus faced. He gave thanks knowing. We should give thanks not knowing what is ahead of us.
We should give thanks for the same reason He did, all of life and all of eternity are in God, the Father’s, hands. We can trust Him with the responsibility.
homo unius libri
Opus 2013-162: Headlines: The Scandal of the Pope Opposing the Devil
Really?
Let’s see now, the head of the largest Christian organization in the world attacks the kingdom of the enemy, the Devil. This is not a man bites dog story. It isn’t even a dog bites man story. It should be in the category of “The Sun Came up Today” story. After all, isn’t fighting the power of Satan the primary job of the head of a Christian organization?
Maybe the mass media needs to get their head out of the Obama Spin Machine and look around them. They have been doing mindless drivel so long they are shocked when the normal happens.
Maybe we ought to have the Pope visit Hollywood or the New York Times and see what he could do there.
homo unius libri
Opus 2013-57: Headlines: Pope Benedict XVI, One of the Good Ones
I am not a Roman Catholic. I have serious differences with the church of Rome, but then I have serious differences with the Baptist church down the street. As a Bible believing Protestant I have always viewed the Roman Catholic church as a denomination of brothers in Christ that I disagreed with but expected to see represented in Heaven. I know, that is big of me. I offer that in humility, not judgement. As that type of Protestant I have always felt that Benedict was one of the “good ones.”
I teach history. I have taught the time period identified with the Reformation. One of the points that I have always tried to get across to the kids is that the popes of that period are not representative of the Papacy. In that era you had politicians and frauds becoming Pope to use the church for their own personal aggrandizement. I think even the Catholic church would agree. I try to point out that in spite of that most popes have been men of good will, trying to be faithful to the call of God as they see it. I don’t agree with them on their theology, but that doesn’t mean they were not forces of good.
Protestants agree with the Catholic church on many basics: The divinity of Christ, the trinity, the physical death and resurrection of Christ, and believe it or not, Catholics accept Ephesians 2:8,
(Ephesians 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:At least the serious Catholics I know agree with the statement.
We disagree on the authority of the Pope, the place of Mary, the nature of communion, and many other issues.
Let us pray that the next Pope is one of the “good ones.”
We live in interesting times. Let us hope that is not a curse.
homo unius libri
Opus 2013-38: Finding a church, part 1 of 4
Several years ago we thought we had found a church home. We did not agree with everything that happened or the way it was done, but the preaching was solid and the people were trying to grow in the Lord. We got involved, accepted responsibility, paid our tithe and tried to become a part of the local body.
Alas. We had been uncomfortable with the things being said when we took communion. We couldn’t put our finger on it but the pastor seemed to be getting a little vague in what was happening. The final straw was when he invited people who did not yet know Jesus to partake. After a bit of dialogue with what he was doing we left the church.
The problem was not social or personality. It was not a subtle difference in denominational understanding of the meaning of communion. As I told the pastor in a letter, I have taken communion with people in many different denominations. In fact I would never hesitate to take communion with people in any church except Lutheran and Catholic. The reason I would not partake with them is because they would consider me unworthy, not because I reject them.
The problem was at the root of what communion was all about. Communion, from the word itself, means commonality. It means we are one. It means we are all part of the body of Christ. It means we share a common hope and eternity. If I take communion with someone who rejects who Jesus is and what He did for us on the cross, I am willingly joining with the other side. It is mainly symbolic but symbols lead to realities.
We looked for a church for years. We found one that was really solid but from a different tradition than we embraced. I was almost ready to look into joining but they changed pastors and the new man was so blatant in his Calvinism that I knew I could not take it. We moved on, not because it was not a good church, but because we would have been divisive.
I finally found a small church that I decided to be a part of. It was in my tradition. The pastor was solid. The music was real music, not just drums and 7/11 songs. (Those are the songs that have seven words that you sing eleven times.) They needed the gifts that I had to share. Is it the perfect church? Not on your life. The perfect church does not exist. This one doesn’t even come close, but it is a place where I can be accountable, serve and grow.
To be continued...
homo unius libri
Opus 2013-4: Links: Response to “Denominations”, part 2 of 2
On Pentecost the disciples, who were believers and were timid and hiding, suddenly had an experience with the Holy Spirit and were out preaching. That is not doctrine but a Biblical teaching. In Acts 15 where it says God cleansed their hearts by faith is a Biblical teaching. Putting them together is a theological statement. We need to know and understand the difference. We believe in the Bible. We try to organize it with our theology.
The difference in emphasis and organization in this theology is where we get our denominations. I personally have a lot of room for different understandings as long as we don’t try to de-Christianize those we disagree with.
I see a parallel between our understanding of political parties and denominations. Intellectually, I believe that it is possible to be a Democrat and be a patriotic American. I would say the same for most other political parties. Emotionally I don’t see it, but I accept that people don’t need to agree with me on tax rates or the size of the military to be good Americans.
I do not apply that to members of the Communist party or devout Muslims who are out to destroy what we have here.
So, I think denominations are good things. They serve an important role. They make a place for all of us to fit in. I would be glad to worship with you, take communion with you and sit beside you at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Just don’t expect me to like your music or your New Living Translation.
homo unius libri
Opus 2013-3: Links: Response to “Denominations”, part 1 of 2
In the study of theology you have different objectives. One the one hand you have “systematic” theology. Another emphasis would be “Biblical” theology. This would seem to be redundant but it is a necessary difference. There are certain teachings that are a required part of orthodox Christianity that you will not find in the concordance. One is the teaching of the Trinity. The world is not in the Bible but you do find both the statement that there is one God along with the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That would be "systematic."
There is also a difference between theology and straight Biblical teaching. For instance, how do you deal with the teaching about the filling with the Holy Spirit? In my background, the Church of the Nazarene, we have a doctrine to explain it. We call it “entire sanctification.” This is theology saying there is a work of grace by the Holy Spirit subsequent to regeneration by which we are filled with the Spirit and sanctified entirely. That is a theological statement. Most denominations would disagree with the way the Nazarenes state it.
How does this work out in teaching the Bible. The Bible says we are to be sanctified wholly.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV) And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.No believer would claim it does not say this. We simply disagree on what it means.
One is theology, one straight Bible teaching.
To be continued...
homo unius libri
Opus 2012-311, John and Martin
But it caught my eye. One of the subjects I have taught on is the Protestant Reformation. I firmly believe that if the popes of that day had not been so corrupt and secular then Luther would have found his answers inside the church and Lutherans would be a Catholic order like the Franciscans and Jesuits. During my lifetime I feel the popes have been decent, godly men. I know that is big of me. It is just an observation, not an attempt to replace Arnold Toynbee. They have been seeking to serve God through their understanding, rooted in the Roman Catholic tradition.
So I am working through this book. I don’t know if I will finish it. I am skimming already. One strange feeling I get is that Pope John XXIII and Martin Luther would have been soul mates. The struggles that the pope is sharing sound like echoes of the inner turmoil that the reformer was dealing with. One became pope; the other a rebel.
Pope John XXIII, Journal of a Soul. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.
homo unius libri
-
Today in the parking lot I was getting ready to pull into an empty spot but just before I started in I noticed that there was one of those s...
-
Today I saw a bumper sticker that said, “Actually, guns do kill people.” I had nothing to write on so I was not able to respond. I wanted t...
-
At various times in my life I have found myself quoting these verses, (1Ch 16:22 KJV) Saying , Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets...