Ordination is a doctrine that needs to be revived if we are going to see the church revived in our day. It is all but neglected because any old slub thinks he can do something for Jesus by becoming a campus parachurch worker or by jumping up in pulpit and "preaching." However, standing in a pulpit does not make one a preacher.
Preaching is an act only of the officially ordained (or licensed) man. In Romans 10:14-15 it says, "How are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" The preaching in this passage is done by someone who is officially "sent." The OT quote emphasizes this as it references an official messenger who has been given the special charge to go announce a victory. Therefore, when a man is ordained, he assumes an office. He becomes God's ambassador with the specific charge of formally declaring God's message, which is the gospel. That is what preaching is: The official declaration of God's Word by the man who is distinctly appointed by God for this solemn affair. In the ordination service the church publicly testifies that this particular man who they are ordaining has been raised up and equipped by God for that role. Then, as they lay hands on him, they formally recognize that God has invested him with the authority that specifically pertains to this office. It is not until that has happened that he actually preaches. Anything that happens before that moment is not what is technically known as "preaching." This is why theologians have differentiated between preaching and exhortation. Preaching is what preachers do (that is, ordained men). Everyone else who speaks biblical truth exhorts his brethren (i.e. encourages or instructs). This is not to say that what a non-ordained person says is not effective or that God cannot use this person to convert people or edify the church. It's just not technically preaching. Why is it important to consider this? For one, we are required to sit under the preaching of God's word from week to week. Paul tells Timothy to "Preach the Word." As a result, the people to whom he is to preach are to submit themselves to that word. So when we gather together for worship, we are mandated to listen to the officially appointed man declare what God has to say. What's the big deal? Isn't that what any non-ordained person does? The truth is that there is a large difference. It is one thing to hear a brother speak to us and teach us truth from the Scripture; it is another to hear someone who has the authority of the office preach. Let me illustrate: Suppose you are driving down the highway and your speed exceeds the set speed limit. The person in the passenger seat can tell you that you are going too fast and need to slow down. That would be a useful exhortation. However, it is quite a different thing to have a police officer pull you over and tell you that you were going too fast. Both said virtually the same thing, but they were vastly different as to their nature and power. Secondly, understanding this doctrine will help us sift through the scads of men who wish to serve as pastor (funny, I almost said "who wish to play pastor", which is a blog in and of itself!). Men who do not have the skills required to preach ought not to preach. If they cannot speak well, put together a coherent message, or interpret Scripture with any sort of meaningful intelligence, they should not act in the capacity that requires them to do so. Similarly, men who have not the theological acumen for this work ought to leave well enough alone. Men who are ordained ought to be thoroughly examined as to their knowledge and beliefs. We would not want any old schmo walking off to some foreign country to act as a representative of our country. We want someone who has some intelligence and expertise in his area of work to act in that capacity. Ought then we not to expect the same of those who will serve as God's ambassadors. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, after worship the congregation should be able to walk away saying, "I heard from God today." The words might have had the intonations of a man, but the message most certainly had the authority and weight of God's very word. And when a man preaches, that's exactly what happens.
0 Comments
The Nicene Creed was modified by the Latin Church, adding the word “Filioque” (i.e. and the Son). The Western Church wanted to be clear regarding the third person of the Trinity and His spiration. The Eastern Church, however, never accepted the term, and to this day continues to use the original form of the Nicene Creed. Thus, the controversy of the Spirit's procession The Latin Church added the term because they thought it best represented the teaching of Scripture: The Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The difference between the Western and Eastern Churches' understanding may be depicted like this: You may ask, “What’s the big deal?” The difference is significant. The Eastern and Western churches have developed quite differently over the last 1000 years. Before we get into more pragmatics, let’s examine the dynamics of filioque. The question comes down to this: How does one relate to the Father? In the Eastern church one is said to have communion with the Father by means of the Spirit only. In the Western church one relates to the Father by means of the Spirit and the Son. On the one hand, you have almost a direct access to the mind of God the Father. The Spirit brings it straight to you. One the other hand, the knowledge you may gain from the Spirit about God the Father includes the Incarnate Son (thus, this knowledge is mediated by means of what the Son reveals about the Father). In sum, the Western Church will have both an incarnational aspect to it and it will be greatly influenced by the Word of Christ. In the Eastern Church, one does not necessarily have an incarnational aspect and may not need any relation to the Son to gain knowledge of God. For the Eastern Church then, the focus then tends to be on a mystical experience of God. 1. We can see some of the practical outworking of this through the writings of various people associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC). One Eastern writer sums up the Greek Church’s views well this way, “The premise of all mysticism is that experiential knowledge of God takes preference over doctrinal understanding of the character and being of God because of the transcendent nature of God.”[1] (Italics added for emphasis). Another Eastern writer says, “None of the mysteries of the most secret wisdom of God ought to appear alien or altogether transcendent to us, but in all humility we must apply our spirit to the contemplation of divine things.”[2] One more quote ought to suffice. This one from a contemporary youth who converted from Protestantism to the EOC, “This is how we worship, to stay concentrated in prayer. We believe that, during the service, God pours himself out. If you get quiet enough in your mind, you can feel, palpably, his presence.”[3] One can see how this radically differs from Western Christianity, especially Reformed Western Christianity. In the West we know God through the Bible alone and we admit that there are some things God has not chosen to reveal. Thus, for the West, “The secret things belong to the Lord” and we try not to pry curiously into them. In the East, there are no secret things. All God's truth, even that which is not revealed in Scripture, is fair game because the Spirit grants us free and unhindered access to it. To put it another way, in the West, we “experience God” by the Spirit’s illuminating our minds to the teaching of Christ in His word. In the East, one experiences God without this word and almost directly (save the mediation of the Spirit). You might say that some of the Eastern Orthodox mysticism is parallel to some of the Pentecostal and charismatic churches today in that it seeks to have a definite, physical experience of God and gain knowledge of God without the Son. The Pentecostal inclination to seek mystical experiences of God apart from the Son and the truth He gives centers isan implicit denial of the filioque. Though Pentecostals might not openly reject the filioque clause, in practice they do. 2. Another practical expression of the filioque is highlighted by Bojidar Marinov.[4] Marinov says that the Eastern countries do not have an adequate understanding of the “rule of law” as the western countries do. This is because their religious experience was framed by the Spirit’s direct interaction with the Father and had no incarnational aspect. Western Churches have fought tyranny because the word of Christ dealt with our physical, everyday life and not just our spiritual relationship with God. The law of God (i.e. the Bible) impacts both our relation to the world as well as our relation to God. Eastern churches did not see this incarnational aspect. God only spoke (so it is said) to our spiritual lives. When it came to normal, everyday life another source of truth was needed. It became the state. Government leaders were the ones who gave law to direct the affairs of this world. So man was to be governed by two laws: one which was spiritual (life with the Father, mediated by the Spirit), and one which was physical/temporal (life on earth, mediated by bureaucrat). 3. Another expression of the practical implications of denying the filioque may be seen in the EOC’s focus on deification. The EOC says that the goal of human redemption is to be so united with God that one actually becomes divine.[5] For many Church Fathers, theosis [i.e. deification] goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in Jesus' person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.[6] In Western theology this is repudiated. The goal of Western theology is justification and being made right with God. This occurs through the atonement and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us by the Spirit's application. In Eastern theology, there is essentially no need for atonement because union with the Father is not dependent upon the Son's activity. Something of this is seen in the liberalism of the West. Liberalism says that God can be known apart from Christ, that there are “many roads to God,” and that all people will be saved (universalism). Such views say that the Spirit lives in us all and allows us to know God apart from Christ and the preaching of His word. For instance… The phrase [filioque] in the creed can lead to a possible misunderstanding. It can threaten our understanding of the Spirit’s universality. It might suggest to the worshiper that Spirit is not the gift of the Father to creation universally but a gift confined to the sphere of the Son and even the sphere of the church. It could give the impression that the Spirit is not present in the whole world but limited to Christian territories. Though it need not, the filioque might threaten the principle of universality- the truth that the Spirit is universally present, implementing the universal salvific will of Father and Son. One could say that the filioque promotes Christomonism. -Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love, p. 196. (Underlining added for emphasis) Pinnock's description is a clear renunciation of the fact that the Spirit is bound to “reveal the Son.” Instead, the Spirit is “universal” and “threatens…the universal salvific will of Father and Son.” In other words, Pinnock says that the way to God does not depend on the Spirit working in and through the word of God (which is the message of the Son, Rom. 10). Rather salvation is the working of the Spirit alone apart from God the Son & His word.
All this radically denies the Bible's plain teaching on the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. __________________________ [1] http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/Eastern_Orthodoxy_The_Mystical_Trap.pdf [2] http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/lossky_intro.aspx [3] http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2012/09/the-lure-of-a-mystical-path-2/ [4] http://www.christendomrestored.com/blog/2012/07/the-filioque-cause-why-the-west-is-west-and-the-east-is-east/ [5] Understanding this is difficult. To say the least, it is not an ontological merge, where you become one with God physically. However, you are increasingly becoming god-like. The goal is not to become like Adam and Eve, as they were in the garden. But to become more than Adam & Eve were to the point where you are made divine. [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)#Theosis [7] http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/athanasian-creed-consequence-denying-filioque-68357/ Yesterday in my class at the prison we began discussing the eighth commandment (Thou shalt not steal). The men there were greatly intrigued by the thought that God's word lays down a perfect system of economics and provides the means for for wealth and prosperity. The teaching and discussion that ensued was so good that they asked if we could continue to studying the subject next week. I thought that I would post my notes, which are based on the Westminster Larger Catechism, just in case others might benefit from them. Unfortunately, these notes are not as complete as I'd like them to be. A good deal of my teaching and illustrating was "ad lib." (Here is a printable version) Question 140: Which is the eighth commandment? The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal. Question 141: What are the duties required in the eighth commandment? Answer: The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and suretyship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own. Question 141: What are the duties required in the eighth commandment? The duties required in the eighth commandment are... truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man;
rendering to everyone his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof;
giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others;
moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods;
a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition;
a lawful calling, and diligence in it;
Frugality;
avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and suretyship, or other like engagements;
and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own. Lev. 25:35, Phil 2:4; Deut 22:1-4 Question 142: What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? Answer: The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land marks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor: What belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God has given us. Question 142: What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are... theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen;
fraudulent dealing,
false weights and measures,
removing land marks,
injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits,
Unjust enclosures and depopulations;
engrossing commodities to enhance the price;
unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor: What belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others;
as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming;
3. Examples of "wasteful gaming": Slot machines, raffles, lotteries, games of chance, sporting pools, card games. (Discuss: What do you think is the difference between these and a pop machine?) and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God has given us. Call to Confession
Reformed theology is unique among the different strands of Christian belief because we have a particularly low view of man and our depravity. We will often confess that man is morally incapable of doing anything good apart from God’s grace. But that is not all that we will say. Reformed theology goes further to confess that man is wholly dependent upon God to restrain us from perpetrating the full potential of our evil. In other words, we are not as bad as we could be—and that is only because God is actively holding us in check and preventing us from further sin. This doctrine is found in many places in Scripture. For instance, in Genesis 20 we read about how Abraham gave his wife to Abimelech. And it says that God kept Abimelech from touching Sarah. The idea is that God restrained Abimelech and prevented him from doing what he had every intention of doing with Sarah. This past week in our Sunday evening study we came across that passage in David’s life where he was snubbed by the wicked man named Nabal. We read how his wife, Abigail, ran out to meet David and attempted to keep him from coming and slaughtering Nabal’s household. And in that passage it says that the Lord prevented David from doing that. We could cite a number of New Testament passages as well. The foremost among them is Romans 1, where it says that “God gave them over to their sinful desires.” The idea there is that God punishes us by removing his hand and the restraints he places on our evil propensity. Well, this morning I wish to lead us in a prayer of repentance, and I will be dealing with this theme of God’s gracious restraint. So I’d ask that you bow your heads and agree with me in prayer as we come before the Lord. Confession of Sin Almighty God, Apart from you we can do nothing. And before you we are nothing. For we are sinners who are desperately lost and powerless in and of ourselves to rectify our moral condition. Father, we confess that, were it not for your restraining hand, we would have long ago plunged headlong into every sort of grave and grievous sin. Yea, had you not held our nature in check we would have destroyed ourselves, our neighbors, and every good thing in our path. For we do not just have a vulnerability for being tempted, but we are predisposed by nature to all that is evil and we do earnestly yearn for the vile pits of ruin and misery. Lord, we thank you that you have not let our depravity follow its natural course nor let it escalate to its full potential. And this day we do confess our desperate need for your pardon and saving power. Our sins will not be diminished in one least bit if you do not intervene and renew us in righteousness. We can no more change our heart’s disposition than a leopard change his spots. Our only hope of reformation lies in the effectual power of your grace and the inward working of your Holy Spirit. So we pray that your mercies may fall upon us and quicken us. Put to death what is unrighteous in us and bring to life any and all godly affections. May you, through the shed blood of our Dear Savior, forgive all our thoughts, words, and deeds that have violated your law, and may you crucify them there with Christ once and for all. God we know that even this prayer does not find its origin in us. That we even look heavenward is owing to your kindness. And we count it but a token of what you may do to revive us in newness of life. We only ask that you would continue to override our hearts and let the Spirit of grace rule in us. Assurance of Pardon “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” Eph. 2:8 I've had a great time speaking at the Fuse's "Wheel of Theology" series these last two weeks. The Fuse is a young adults' program at Grace Church here in Ashland and during the Spring they have their group submit theological or biblical questions for a panel to answer. I like this simply for the reason that it shows these young people are thinking seriously about Christianity and a comprehensive Christian worldview. I commend the guys leading this ministry (Rich, Ben, Randy) and all of the pastoral staff at Grace Church for their work.
Here are a few of the questions I was called upon to field
Marijuana Marijuana is starting to be legalized in the United States. How should a Christian respond? There are basically four things to remember Scripturally when thinking about this subject. Medicinal purposes: The Proverbs say, “Give strong drink to the perishing.” It allows the one who is dying to have some reprieve from the pain by means of drug induced stimuli. Marijuana has also, in ages past, been used as an anesthetic prior to surgery. These are legitimate purposes according to Scripture. Purposes of dominion: God calls us to take dominion of the world and advance society. The things He has created are the raw materials for our creative and productive work. This includes the marijuana plant. Through scientific inquiry we have discovered good uses for it (and perhaps there are many more usages waiting to be discovered). For instance, the marijuana plant can be used in forms of rope. Such a thing would be most useful and godly. Purposes of food: God gave us every seed bearing plant for food. Eating it might be a legitimate thing to do....But as Joe Carter has said: let’s get real, no one is adding hash to their brownies because it makes them taste better. Recreational purposes: The key to remember is this: Any drug should be carefully examined as to its affects upon our minds and our bodies. Obviously, we do not want to bring physical harm upon ourselves. We might use as a good guide what Solomon said regarding his use of alcohol: He drank enough to where he still had the capacities of his mind. In other words, he was not drunk or given over to senselessness. God requires us to have self control and our powers of rationality are key to that. Studies indicate that it only takes approximately 4 tokes to affect your psychological state. I've also heard that just one puff can put you over the top. This makes the use of marijuana unwise for the Christian. It should also make us question the terminology of "recreational use of marijuana," as it makes it sound fun and exciting. Secular Bands There are two basic things to consider regarding participation in a secular band, the company you keep and the content of your songs. I'll start with the later. If you are singing songs that are overtly immoral (i.e. rape your mother, premarital sex, hedonistic lifestyle), then you are most definitely out of God's will. Even if you are only playing the guitar and not directly singing them, this is being an accomplice in the act. However, if you are singing songs that are not directly against God's law, you might be able to do it. Love songs are not expressly evil in and of themselves (Just check out the Song of Solomon). There are many songs that what we might call adiaphora, i.e. "things indifferent." The other item to consider is the company you keep. Scripture says that bad company corrupts good character. If you are in a band, it may be likely that these guys you are playing with are your closest confidants. They are people with whom you hang and have a good deal of interaction. This might not be healthy and you need to use discernment. Overall, if this is a question someone truly is considering, he has to gauge whether or not it is healthy for his walk with Christ. It might just be love of pleasure or pride that motivates his wanting to participate. Or, it may be a good means of using his God given gift in order to make a jump to a more overtly Christian purpose. Images of Jesus Some people deem it okay because Jesus was a man. They can depict his human nature, just as long as they are not worshipping the image. Teaching purposes, they say, are ok. I differ from the main stream. I think that the second commandment applies to the person of Jesus too. That’s because Christ wishes to be known through his word and the sacraments. The Bible says that "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God." What's more, to depict Christ is to teach something about Christ (liberal, feminine, surfer dude who cannot ever be made.) It is my belief that teaching is a form of worship. Even if that isn't true, learning about Christ should lead you to worship. So if you are learning by means of images, you are worshiping God by means of images. So, the use of pictures of Jesus does, in my opinion, violate the second commandment's prohibition to not worship or bow down to images. See the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 96-98 If you want images, the Bible does provide you with some. They are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Developing a right understanding of these tactile means of grace would be a very good thing to do. Disabilities There are many people in the Bible with disabilities. Mephibosheth had crippled legs, Ahaziah fell through the upper latice. The Apostle Paul likely would have had some degree of diability after being stoned, recieving the 40 lashes minus one (5 times!), beaten with rods (3x!), and shipwrecked at sea. Then, of course, there are all the people who got healed, a significant cast for sure. Here are some things to note: Symbolic: People with deformities were not allowed into certain places in the temple. The purpose for this is symbolic: the closer one comes to God the more “holy,” i.e. perfect, he had to be. This is not to say that these people were rejected by God. The Lord was simply using a picture lesson to teach our deformity of sin and need for Christ's redemption. Purpose: Sometimes people are given a disability because of a direct curse from God. For instance, Miriam was inflicted with leprosy temporarily. However, sometimes people receive this condition as a result of God’s purpose and plan for their lives ("who sinned, this man or his parents?" Jn 6). Others have disabilities as part of the effects of sin through aging or war. Personal responsibility: Most disabilities are not debilitating. You might be prevented from engaging in certain forms of activity or certain amounts of activity. But normally, you are not prevented from taking dominion in some capacity and engaging in meaningful work. I say this because our culture today sends the message: disability means useless, or gives the excuse to not work. Think of Paul. Despite him likely having a bad back with all that he went through, he still vigorously sought to fulfill his calling. Due Honor & respect: At the same time, those who are infirm ought to be respected and honored by those who are physically well. Leviticus 19:14 says, "Do not put a stumbling block before those who are blind." Negatively this is saying that God hates it when we take advantage of those who are disabled. Positively this is saying we should respect them and do everything in our power to promote their welbeing. The Scripture also is high on restitution. So, if an employee is hurt on the job and it is the company’s fault, they ought to provide fair and just compensation. If their disability is debilitating, then they should be recipients of charity and encouraged to work in the capacity that they can, if it only be a life of prayer. At the same time, those who are disabled should not become a special class of people. By that I imply the state and federal regulations that mandate ramps and parking & such for people with disabilities. This is an infringement on the private sector. In months past I have written on the cause of suicide. I explained that some of its prevalence in Ashland (and America at large) is due much to the naturalistic and materialistic worldview that is taught in our public schools (and pretty much everywhere else). I would like to offer one more reason why people choose to end their lives. I would not doubt either that this is the most basic cause. "Suicide can be one of the ways that people deal with their sin. It is, at the same time, a means of escape and a kind of self atonement. The guilt one experiences for sin can be exceedingly maddening. The only remedy may appear to be the ending of the thinking process. Similarly, the shedding of one's blood for guilt parody's the true remedy for sin: The crucifixion of Christ. "It is no wonder that you are driven to despair; when your sins come howling behind you like so many ravenous wolves. I should understand why you would seek to lay violent hands upon yourself. It is no strange thing for men to loose all hope when under a sentence of sin." -CH Spurgeon A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful. In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge. Pro 14:25-26 Exegeting Scripture involves looking at all the different parts of God’s word. You whittle each line down and examine each and every word. Each phrase is scrutinized. But as you look at the individual trees (and even individual leaves!), you should never forget to step back and see the forest. Each of these proverbs contains good lessons. You can learn a lot from each line. But it is important to notice their juxtaposition too. We could talk about the excellency of a truthful witness. We could enshrine the bold advocate of Biblical truth as one who is a savior. And we could talk about how wonderful it is to know the fear of God and possess a good self esteem (confidence). But you have to understand that these ideas are not separate and independent of each other. They are intertwined and the first is absolutely dependent upon the second. A truthful witness saves lives. He is one who stands up against the tide of unbelief and is willing to be known as a kook. He’s not afraid to speak out against the issues of his day, despite being the minority—perhaps even the lone voice. But how is it that he has that boldness? His confidence comes from his fear of God. When you are not anchored in the fear of God, you will end up pandering and capitulating to the masses. Think of Athanasius. He was exiled three times for his standing against the rank heresy of Arianism. There is no doubt that there was the temptation to succumb to the falsehood that was becoming more and more mainstream. Life in exile was certainly not a pleasant thing. Yet, despite his persecution, he remained faithful to the word of God. Martin Luther is a good example too. We romanticize Luther’s life. We tend to forget that people didn’t much care for his speaking out against purgatory, the Roman establishment, and such. We forget that he cowered at times in his home, to the point of being almost mad. What was it that made these stalwarts so persevering? It was their fear of God. Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, think of the Apostle Peter. He betrayed Christ three times. What was the grand pressure that he faced? It wasn't anything much. He got rolled over by a little girl. Why did he cave? Why did he lack the confidence to speak up? Because he didn’t know the fear of God. What about our day? What would it be like if you spoke up against the sacred cows of our day? If you dared to pipe up about feminism, and talk about things like Titus 2 or 2 Tim. 2:14. Or if you had a crazy thought like: You know, children are leaving the faith in droves and becoming atheists and agnostics almost en mass. Perhaps it is because they are going to schools that are atheistic and agnostic? Maybe we should do something completely off the wall and reconsider the way we raise and educate them. What would it be like if you attempted to broach these kinds of issues? Imagine the kind of blowback you’d get. I would suppose some of your jobs would be on the line. You’d likely be thought of as a kook. You might not be physically exiled like Athanasius, but you might experience an exile of sorts as people leave your church or say things like, “there goes Crazy Uncle Matt again!” That’s why the fear of the Lord must be your confidence. The best summary of what that is goes like this: The fear of God is when your biggest fear is breaking God’s command and offending him. God is so loved, so enjoyed, so reverenced, so enjoyed that His will, and it alone, is what matters. Only when He comes first will you be able to be a savior...and an oddball. Discuss: As Augustine begins his “confession” he starts at the very early days of adolescence. Why do you think he includes this in his account? Why does he devote a lengthy discussion to this period of his life? To be sure, puberty is a developmental milestone. But Augustine sees this not primarily as a time of physical and mental development—though he mentions his father’s rather embarrassing recognition of it in the bathhouse. To Augustine, the adolescence was a major developmental stage for his sinful life. He does not gloss over it as a time when “boys will be boys” or a time when he can merely “sow his wild oats.” He sees this as a dark time; a crucial time where his descent down the path of wickedness began. For this reason he begins the chapter by mentioning the vanity of the road he set upon: “I will attempt to give a coherent account of my disintegrated self, for when I turned away from you, the one God, and pursued a multitude of things, I went to pieces. There was a time in adolescence when I was afire to take my fill of hell.” This is an echo of what he says in another place, “our hearts are restless until we find our rest in Thee.” In sum, he declares that peace of mind/peace in life can only be achieved through peace with God. As we wonder further away from obedience to the Lord (and the revelation of absolute truth that he gives), we bring upon ourselves misery of mind/life. The theme of lust is noted at the outset of the chapter. Augustine asks, “What was it that delighted me? Only loving and being loved.” He goes on to express that love and lust were two things that were profoundly confused, such that he could not distinguish the “calm light of love from the fog of lust.” Discuss: Is there a legitimate distinction between love and lust? If so, what is it? How do we define or distinguish love and lust? What is the basis for such a distinction? The lusts associated with Augustine’s youth may be categorized in the following ways: 1. Sexual intrigue. Augustine starts by admitting that he was “in love with being in love.” This, at least at this time in his life, primarily means an unbiblical sexual proclivity. The number one sin of the adolescent years is that of lust so it is no surprise that he talks about this. However, the honesty of it and the expression of how vile it really was is interesting given the sexing of our culture and "free love" tendency. Augustine notes that this yearning marriage would have curbed these desires, or at least put them to good use in propagating the race through children. There was no intention of this though. His parents cared more for his education than his chastity. His mother did admonish and instruct him on the evil of fornication, but he would not listen. In the end, he admits that these exploits plunged him further away from God. Though sweet to the flesh they were bitter to the soul because the Lord would not bless them (he "sprinkled bitter disappointments over all my unlawful pleasures so that I might seek a pleasure free from all disappointment.") 2. Companions: The lust he had was not confined to that of women though. He yearned for acceptance with his male friends. This was fed by the idleness of being away from school for a time. He spent much time roaming with friends. To be recognized by them he made up stories about sexual exploits (“afraid of being reviled, I grew viler”) 3. Greater wickedness Augustine says, “Throughout these experiences a dark fog cut me off from your bright truth, my God, and my sin grew sleek on my excesses.” Adolescence is a time marked by growth. We typically associate with it the developments that occur physically and mentally. Augie does not do this. The growth of his sin is what is in the foreground. This time of his life was marked by hardening in evil ways. The more evil that is done, the more thirsty one becomes for more. Essentially Aug. says that there is a drug like effect of sin. You become addicted. Correspondingly, as you are attracted to more evil, your mind becomes more distant from the things of heaven and God. (The Bible talks about searing the conscience and being given a “reprobate mind.”) Discuss: Much of the chapter is tied up with his discussion of the pear tree. What happens there? Why does Augustine deem this so important as to include it? There is a sense in which this tale parallels the biblical story of Adam and Eve. In the Genesis 3 story we read of the initial sin that plunged mankind into sin. Here, we see Augustine’s revelry in sin. He confesses that he would not have done it if he were alone, nor were the pears of great desire (there were better ones to be had). It was purely “sin for sin’s sake;” the pleasure of ruin and destruction. (“The malice was loathsome, and I loved it.”) Augustine insinuates that the sin of Adam had left its mark. The corruption of the heart was such that he took great delight in the evil. Discuss: Augie also says that his friends had something to do with the whole event. Do you think that this was essentially your everyday act of peer pressure? Augustine also remarks that the raping of the pear tree corresponded to the sin of our first parents in motivation. The serpent tempted Adam and Eve by saying, “when you eat of it you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Augustine says (II.14), “All those who wander far away and set themselves up against you are imitating you, but in a perverse way.” That is to say, in seeking to be a law unto oneself they copy the work of the Lawgiver himself. Augustine admits, “I was…trying to simulate a crippled sort of freedom, attempting a shady parody of omnipotence by getting away with something forbidden.” Augustine ends by essentially saying, “So began my course.” While he might have had some happy moments, he lacked true joy & satisfaction because he lacked the Lord. We might hear in his concluding remarks something of what King Solomon said in the book of Eccl.: “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, "I have no pleasure in them." One of the keys to understanding the meta-narrative of Scripture is what is typically called “progressive revelation.” Progressive revelation is part of the interpretive process wherein it is understood that God has revealed himself and his plan in gradual increments throughout history. As we seek to understand progressive revelation, let us be sure what it is not. What Progressive Salvation is Not 1). It should be understood that progressive revelation is not an evolution of religion or doctrine. Some maintain we see in Scripture the gradual transition from polytheism and nature worship to monotheism; the shift from cultic blood sacrifices to ethical religion.[1] This perspective was popularized by the higher criticism that is associated with the Modernist movement of the 19th century (which is more commonly known as classic liberalism). 2) It should also be understood that progressive revelation is not a revelation of inconsistent and opposing truths at different points in history. The theological construct known as dispensationalism would be the most common illustration of this. The early dispensationalists, such as CI Scofield, postulated that God revealed himself in entirely different ways in different dispensations. The position these men advanced was more than just new information that built on old information. It was distinct and separate from that prior revelation. A dispensation, according to Scofield, was a radically new way in which God related to his people. For instance, during the time of Moses it is believed that God related to his people by means of law. In distinction from this, dispensationalists proposed a new dispensation known as the church age wherein the Lord related to his people by means of grace. The older (sometimes called “classic”) dispensationalism went so far as to say that the saints during Moses’ time were saved by virtue of their works while the saints during the church age are saved by faith. Contemporary (or “progressive”) dispensationalists would deny such a claim and affirm the more orthodox position—that the OT saints were saved by faith in the Messiah to come.[2] Nevertheless, their view of progressive revelation still has some of the same incongruities. This is witnessed in the fact that both the older and the more recent forms of dispensationalism posit two different plans of salvation for two different peoples (Jews have a physical earthly kingdom, Gentiles have part in the church, the spiritual and temporal kingdom). Progressive Revelation Explained & Illustrated If progressive revelation is not evolutionary in nature or different in substance, how then are we to understand it? The proper view may be compared to an oak tree that grows out of an acorn. While the oak tree is obviously distinct from an acorn, it is not altogether unrelated. It is the fuller manifestation of the acorn. The essential properties of the tree are not different from that of the nut. Rather, it is simply the greater expression of all that was contained in the smaller seed form. I recently gave a series of lectures on apologetics, particularly in regards to Islam. I have debated whether or not I should post them because much of the material has been borrowed (and is lacking a great deal of the necessary citations). I have decided though, to make the material available as it has been in some demand.
Please note though that much of what is here is simply a conglomeration of other people's thoughts. Lecture 1: The Dilemma of Islam Lecture 2: Allah: Uncovered and Exposed Lecture 3: More Examples of How Isalm Impales Itself Lecture 4: The Sure Way of Salvation Here is the corresponding study guide. |
Kindled Fire is dedicated
to the preaching and teaching ministry of Matt Timmons. Matt is blessed to be a husband, father, and pastor in Ashland, Ohio. Got Problems?
Get Biblical Counsel Social Media
Join the conversation! Check Out
Matt's Original Hymns This is Matt's book. You should buy it.
Categories
All
Archives
November 2020
|