I have heard on a few occasions that God condemns the use of Christmas trees in Jeremiah 10:3-4. Read these words:
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.
At firsts reading, this looks like a contemporary Christmas tree. At first glance, it looks as if these verses can be used to condemn the use of a Christmas tree. However, it is always imperative that one reads the context of the verses and not simply pull them out of the Bible and use them as a proof text. Is God condemning Christmas tress is Jeremiah 10? Verse 5 answers that question for us:
5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.
As you read verse five, you realize that God is not condemning Christmas trees but idols carved out of word, adorned, and used as worship. A Little history of the Christmas tree might be helpful: The Christmas Tree originated in Germany about 2000 years after Jeremiah’s condemnation of wooden idols. An article from the Christian Research Institute says, “It originated from two Christian symbols found in homes at Christmas time. The first was a “Paradise tree,” an evergreen which was hung with apples which represented the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. The second symbol was a “Christmas pyramid.” This of course was a triangular shelf holding Christmas figurines and decorated with a star. By about the 16th century these two symbols had been combined into the Christian Christmas tree.”
The real issue with all the secular “trappings” of Christmas is this: How’s your focus? Another way of asking this question is simply, “How’s your heart?” There is nothing wrong with having a Christmas Tree or other more secular decorations unless they are tearing your away from the true message and meaning of the season. Idols divide your heart. Use your decorations as a means to sharpen your focus on God’s gift and to communicate the gospel message to people who walk through your home. For instance, the Christmas Tree is an evergreen. You could point people to the truth of eternal life through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Use the Christmas decorations as a catalyst to enhance your worship. Let the wreath, tree, and other decorations remind you of the amazing love of our Savior. Even Santa Claus can be redeemed. Do a historical study of the “real” Santa Claus. You can even teach your children about the real “gift giver, “namely God Himself.
The question for us all this Christmas season is this: Are you being trapped under the weight of the American Christmas picture, or are you in true and authentic worship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As I have said many times this year, allow yourself to be amazed. The creator of the universe chose to leave His throne, become a fetus in the womb of Mary and be born of a virgin. Every time you see Christmas decorations allow your heart to leap for joy and bow your knee in humble adoration.
Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Did Jesus Complete the Work of Atonement on the Cross?
Is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross sufficient to atone for our sins? If you follow many of the word of faith teachers, you may have heard the m teach that Jesus had to descend into hell to complete the atonement process. The cross of Jesus was not sufficient. This teaching has been put forth my many teachers like Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen just to name a few.
“In her 1991 booklet, "The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make", Meyer teaches a hallmark doctrine of Faith theology, namely, that Christ had to suffer in hell to atone for our sins and be born again: ‘During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin….He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme…Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus….He was resurrected from the dead’” (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-teachings-of-joyce-meyer)
Sadly, this is a teaching I am seeing far too much on television and the internet. Is it true? Did Jesus have to descend into hell to finish the atoning work of Jesus Christ? While Christians have long debated whether or not Jesus descended into hell, and if he did, what did he do in hell, true Christianity never strays far from the orthodox view that everything needed for the atonement of sin was sufficiently accomplished on the cross.
Let me outline three biblical reasons Jesus did not need to descend into hell to finish the atoning work of the cross. First, there are the Words of Christ. Luke 23:43 Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” It is imperative we understand what the Greek word “today” means. It means today, this very day; the same day you are currently living in. The promise of Christ was the thief on the cross would be with Christ in paradise “today.” In John 19:30, Jesus utters His most powerful words, “It is finished.” This is one Greek word meaning “paid in full.” Warren Wiersbe reminds us the Greek word tetelestai means “it is finished, it stands finished, and it always will be finished.” Wiersbe continues, “When He gave Himself on the cross, Jesus fully met the righteous demands of a holy law; He paid our debt in full” (The Bible Exposition Commentary – Matthew-Galatians pg 384). Christ’s word on the cross assures us that everything that was needed to be done was done on the cross and nothing further needed to be done.
Secondly, there is the Work of the Cross. Throughout the Pauline Epistles we see the depravity of man, the grace of God through salvation, the transformation of our lives by the Spirit and the practical nature of the walk and witness of every Christian. But central to Pauline theology is the cross and Jesus crucified. Paul’s very brief statement captures his passion well, “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). In his letter to the saints in Christ at Colossae we again see the centrality of the cross and the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ on the cross. Paul reminds his reader that God has “rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves… (Col 1:13). How did God rescue us? “and through him (Christ) to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” We have gained peace through the blood shed of Christ on the cross. There is not even a hint at receiving peace with God through Jesus’ descent into hell. Paul continues and settles the matter once and for all when he writes, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written cod, with its regulations that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away nailing it to the cross (emphasis mine). And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross ( Col 2:13-15). Is there really any doubt? Christ took our guilt upon the cross and triumphed over our enemies on the cross. The work of Jesus on the Cross has set us free.
Finally, not only can we look at the word of Christ and the work of the cross to affirm the sufficiency of the cross, we can also examine the Washing of Blood. The verses referring to the efficiency of the blood of Christ are too numerous to list. Here is a short list: We are justified by His blood (Ro 5:8), We are redeemed by His blood (Eph 1:7, 1 Peter 1:19), We have peace with God through His blood (Col 1:20), We have forgiveness of our sin through His blood (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:22, 1 John 1:7), and we have access to the Most Holy Place through His blood (Hebrews 10:19). Praise be to God! As Peter so aptly reminds us, “For you know it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18-19). What were we redeemed with?
I believe Scripture is clear. The cross is sufficient for the redemption of mankind. When Christ gave His life upon the cross He did all that was needed to be done and there is nothing else we could do. But this one thing we can be certain of, we are great sinners in need of a great Savior. Our sin makes us, not bad people, but dead people. Through God’s grace in faith we are made alive in Christ because of His death on the cross. Jesus paid our debt in full on the cross. Have you left the empty life in which you once lived? Have you crossed over to a full and abundant life in Christ? In faith, turn to Christ. Believe He is the Christ and has paid your debt. Decide to follow Him from this day forward wholeheartedly and with sincere reverence and devotion. To God be the glory for the great things He has done.
“In her 1991 booklet, "The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make", Meyer teaches a hallmark doctrine of Faith theology, namely, that Christ had to suffer in hell to atone for our sins and be born again: ‘During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin….He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme…Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus….He was resurrected from the dead’” (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-teachings-of-joyce-meyer)
Sadly, this is a teaching I am seeing far too much on television and the internet. Is it true? Did Jesus have to descend into hell to finish the atoning work of Jesus Christ? While Christians have long debated whether or not Jesus descended into hell, and if he did, what did he do in hell, true Christianity never strays far from the orthodox view that everything needed for the atonement of sin was sufficiently accomplished on the cross.
Let me outline three biblical reasons Jesus did not need to descend into hell to finish the atoning work of the cross. First, there are the Words of Christ. Luke 23:43 Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” It is imperative we understand what the Greek word “today” means. It means today, this very day; the same day you are currently living in. The promise of Christ was the thief on the cross would be with Christ in paradise “today.” In John 19:30, Jesus utters His most powerful words, “It is finished.” This is one Greek word meaning “paid in full.” Warren Wiersbe reminds us the Greek word tetelestai means “it is finished, it stands finished, and it always will be finished.” Wiersbe continues, “When He gave Himself on the cross, Jesus fully met the righteous demands of a holy law; He paid our debt in full” (The Bible Exposition Commentary – Matthew-Galatians pg 384). Christ’s word on the cross assures us that everything that was needed to be done was done on the cross and nothing further needed to be done.
Secondly, there is the Work of the Cross. Throughout the Pauline Epistles we see the depravity of man, the grace of God through salvation, the transformation of our lives by the Spirit and the practical nature of the walk and witness of every Christian. But central to Pauline theology is the cross and Jesus crucified. Paul’s very brief statement captures his passion well, “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). In his letter to the saints in Christ at Colossae we again see the centrality of the cross and the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ on the cross. Paul reminds his reader that God has “rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves… (Col 1:13). How did God rescue us? “and through him (Christ) to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” We have gained peace through the blood shed of Christ on the cross. There is not even a hint at receiving peace with God through Jesus’ descent into hell. Paul continues and settles the matter once and for all when he writes, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written cod, with its regulations that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away nailing it to the cross (emphasis mine). And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross ( Col 2:13-15). Is there really any doubt? Christ took our guilt upon the cross and triumphed over our enemies on the cross. The work of Jesus on the Cross has set us free.
Finally, not only can we look at the word of Christ and the work of the cross to affirm the sufficiency of the cross, we can also examine the Washing of Blood. The verses referring to the efficiency of the blood of Christ are too numerous to list. Here is a short list: We are justified by His blood (Ro 5:8), We are redeemed by His blood (Eph 1:7, 1 Peter 1:19), We have peace with God through His blood (Col 1:20), We have forgiveness of our sin through His blood (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:22, 1 John 1:7), and we have access to the Most Holy Place through His blood (Hebrews 10:19). Praise be to God! As Peter so aptly reminds us, “For you know it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18-19). What were we redeemed with?
I believe Scripture is clear. The cross is sufficient for the redemption of mankind. When Christ gave His life upon the cross He did all that was needed to be done and there is nothing else we could do. But this one thing we can be certain of, we are great sinners in need of a great Savior. Our sin makes us, not bad people, but dead people. Through God’s grace in faith we are made alive in Christ because of His death on the cross. Jesus paid our debt in full on the cross. Have you left the empty life in which you once lived? Have you crossed over to a full and abundant life in Christ? In faith, turn to Christ. Believe He is the Christ and has paid your debt. Decide to follow Him from this day forward wholeheartedly and with sincere reverence and devotion. To God be the glory for the great things He has done.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Camping and The Rapture
Is the Rapture occurring May 21st?
Many of you have probably already heard about Harold Camping’s prediction about the Rapture occurring on May 21, 2001. I am now seeing it all over Facebook. I have actually been following this for many months thanks to the ministry of Hank Hanegraaff. Camping is not only predicting a May 21st Rapture, but he is guaranteeing our Lord’s return. He goes on to even give us the time; the rapture will occur at 6:00 pm on May 21st. The rapture will be ushered in via major worldwide earthquake. An earthquake unlike the world has ever seen. Furthermore, he further states the end of the world will occur on October 21, 2011. On this date, the earth and universe will be totally consumed and destroyed. Is the rapture occurring this week? Can we expect the earth and universe to be totally destroyed in a few months?
It is important to note, that Camping has already been proven to be a false prophet. This is not his first rapture prediction. He has previously guaranteed the rapture would occur in 1994 and no one would be saved after that date. Remember, the test of a true prophet is 100% accuracy. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 states, “ Now if you say to yourselves, ‘How can we tell that a message is not from the LORD?’ whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.” Camping is a false prophet. Do not listen to him.
Camping has used numerology on numerous occasions to come up with his very imaginative prophecies. His May 21st day is very imaginative indeed. Here are Camping’s own words:
The best place in the Bible that focuses on 2011 is a passage in 2 Peter 3:8 where God is talking about two judgments. One judgment is the judgment of the flood of Noah's day and the other is the judgment at the end of the world. And in that context God says "Beloved, there's one thing that I do not want you to be ignorant of, and that is that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day." That's a very, very intriguing statement and it's very curious that when we—because we know that the flood occurred in 4990 BC, and if we go seven days, that is 7000 years from there, we land on the year 2011....2011 keeps shining through as the probable date for the - probable year that will end this earth's existence (http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_outs/d-day-declarations-revisited - you can also just do quick internet search – it is not hard to find his comments – although I have enjoyed Hank Hanegraaff response to Camping).
Are you serious? Do people actually believe this stuff? First of all, the Word of God does not say, “a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day.” I challenge anyone to find me a verse that says that phrase. You will not find it. Secondly, there is absolutely no way of accurately dating Noah’s Flood. To have such a dogmatic date is completely bogus. Furthermore, the Word of God explains the earth and universe will not be completely destroyed and consumed but God will restore and recreate it into a “new heaven and new earth (Rev 21). We must also not forget that Matthew 24 assures us that “no one know about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven or the Son” (verse 36). I would had not even Camping knows the date.
So how should we respond to such a blatant misuse of God’s Words? First, we must test the word against the Word. You must be so familiar with God’s Word that you can spot a counterfeit from a mile away. How many of you stumbled over my comment about the 1000 years is a day comment? Look at what Camping wrote: “that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day.” If you are not familiar with the Word of God you may accept that phrase as being authentic. However, scripture says, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day.” The one word, “Like” makes a huge difference in the meaning of the verse. The verse that Camping quotes is not in scripture. But if you did not know the Word of God, you may believe Camping and come to think that Peter was giving us a dating method.
If I were to say, “It’s raining like cats and dogs,” how many of you would go outside expecting cats and dogs to be falling from the sky? You know it is only a metaphor I was using to express how hard it was raining. Likewise, when you go to the context of this verse, you know that Peter is using a metaphor expressing the idea that time is relative to God. Time means nothing to God. Peter was not giving us a new dating device but telling us that God is not slow in keeping his promises because God is outside of time. It is interesting to note that just a few verses later Peter tells us “the day of the Lord will come like a thief.” The same Greek word for “like” is used in both verse 8 and 10 of 2 Peter 3. In both cases, Peter is using metaphorical language that is evident in context.
Not only do we need to test the word, we must also use this time as an opportunity for an open dialogue and a forum on the truths of Scripture. When May 21st comes and goes, there may be many people who believe Camping speaks for all Christians. It will open up the door to a wonderful opportunity to spread the true message of Christ and His second coming. The orthodox Christian belief that we dogmatically stand upon is Christ is coming again. We do not know when but we know He is coming. It will be a glorious day where God breaks in on history by sending His Son, eradicating evil, vindicating His people, restoring His Kingdom and ushering in the new heaven and new earth. Christians at times disagree and debate the “how” of this process but the eventual outcome is not up for debate: Jesus is coming again and He wins in the end and He wins eternally. When May 21 comes and goes, we must be ready to step in and teach the truth of the Gospel with grace. This event may actually open a wonderful opportunity for us to dialogue about the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ. Look for opportunities in the coming days to expound truth to those who might be ready to listen and more open to the truth.
Finally, this reminds us of the importance of living expectantly. We must live ready for Christ’s coming at any moment. This is the thought that purifies us (1 John 3:3). We must not only live expecting Christ to return at any moment, we must also live expecting to live a long time and to have a long fruitful ministry for our Lord. These two opposing ideas are always kept in balance and under constant tension. There is a chance Jesus will come back very soon. There is also a chance we might live a long time and never personally experience the second coming. We must be living and loving while expecting both. Are you ready for His return? You don’t want to be caught off guard. Is your life making an eternal difference? When you greet our Lord, will He say, “Well done!”
It matters not when Christ returns. Are you ready today to meet Christ? His return may be this afternoon or in 30 years or 100 years. We simply do not know. But we must live every moment in obedience to God; we must love Him wholly and only and seek to glorify Him in all we do. Don’t worry about dates – you may meet Christ on your return home today. Are you ready? By the way, I have a great sermon on knowing and doing the will of God. I am fairly confident I will be able to deliver my sermon on Sunday, May 22nd. See you then.
Many of you have probably already heard about Harold Camping’s prediction about the Rapture occurring on May 21, 2001. I am now seeing it all over Facebook. I have actually been following this for many months thanks to the ministry of Hank Hanegraaff. Camping is not only predicting a May 21st Rapture, but he is guaranteeing our Lord’s return. He goes on to even give us the time; the rapture will occur at 6:00 pm on May 21st. The rapture will be ushered in via major worldwide earthquake. An earthquake unlike the world has ever seen. Furthermore, he further states the end of the world will occur on October 21, 2011. On this date, the earth and universe will be totally consumed and destroyed. Is the rapture occurring this week? Can we expect the earth and universe to be totally destroyed in a few months?
It is important to note, that Camping has already been proven to be a false prophet. This is not his first rapture prediction. He has previously guaranteed the rapture would occur in 1994 and no one would be saved after that date. Remember, the test of a true prophet is 100% accuracy. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 states, “ Now if you say to yourselves, ‘How can we tell that a message is not from the LORD?’ whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.” Camping is a false prophet. Do not listen to him.
Camping has used numerology on numerous occasions to come up with his very imaginative prophecies. His May 21st day is very imaginative indeed. Here are Camping’s own words:
The best place in the Bible that focuses on 2011 is a passage in 2 Peter 3:8 where God is talking about two judgments. One judgment is the judgment of the flood of Noah's day and the other is the judgment at the end of the world. And in that context God says "Beloved, there's one thing that I do not want you to be ignorant of, and that is that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day." That's a very, very intriguing statement and it's very curious that when we—because we know that the flood occurred in 4990 BC, and if we go seven days, that is 7000 years from there, we land on the year 2011....2011 keeps shining through as the probable date for the - probable year that will end this earth's existence (http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_outs/d-day-declarations-revisited - you can also just do quick internet search – it is not hard to find his comments – although I have enjoyed Hank Hanegraaff response to Camping).
Are you serious? Do people actually believe this stuff? First of all, the Word of God does not say, “a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day.” I challenge anyone to find me a verse that says that phrase. You will not find it. Secondly, there is absolutely no way of accurately dating Noah’s Flood. To have such a dogmatic date is completely bogus. Furthermore, the Word of God explains the earth and universe will not be completely destroyed and consumed but God will restore and recreate it into a “new heaven and new earth (Rev 21). We must also not forget that Matthew 24 assures us that “no one know about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven or the Son” (verse 36). I would had not even Camping knows the date.
So how should we respond to such a blatant misuse of God’s Words? First, we must test the word against the Word. You must be so familiar with God’s Word that you can spot a counterfeit from a mile away. How many of you stumbled over my comment about the 1000 years is a day comment? Look at what Camping wrote: “that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day.” If you are not familiar with the Word of God you may accept that phrase as being authentic. However, scripture says, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day.” The one word, “Like” makes a huge difference in the meaning of the verse. The verse that Camping quotes is not in scripture. But if you did not know the Word of God, you may believe Camping and come to think that Peter was giving us a dating method.
If I were to say, “It’s raining like cats and dogs,” how many of you would go outside expecting cats and dogs to be falling from the sky? You know it is only a metaphor I was using to express how hard it was raining. Likewise, when you go to the context of this verse, you know that Peter is using a metaphor expressing the idea that time is relative to God. Time means nothing to God. Peter was not giving us a new dating device but telling us that God is not slow in keeping his promises because God is outside of time. It is interesting to note that just a few verses later Peter tells us “the day of the Lord will come like a thief.” The same Greek word for “like” is used in both verse 8 and 10 of 2 Peter 3. In both cases, Peter is using metaphorical language that is evident in context.
Not only do we need to test the word, we must also use this time as an opportunity for an open dialogue and a forum on the truths of Scripture. When May 21st comes and goes, there may be many people who believe Camping speaks for all Christians. It will open up the door to a wonderful opportunity to spread the true message of Christ and His second coming. The orthodox Christian belief that we dogmatically stand upon is Christ is coming again. We do not know when but we know He is coming. It will be a glorious day where God breaks in on history by sending His Son, eradicating evil, vindicating His people, restoring His Kingdom and ushering in the new heaven and new earth. Christians at times disagree and debate the “how” of this process but the eventual outcome is not up for debate: Jesus is coming again and He wins in the end and He wins eternally. When May 21 comes and goes, we must be ready to step in and teach the truth of the Gospel with grace. This event may actually open a wonderful opportunity for us to dialogue about the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ. Look for opportunities in the coming days to expound truth to those who might be ready to listen and more open to the truth.
Finally, this reminds us of the importance of living expectantly. We must live ready for Christ’s coming at any moment. This is the thought that purifies us (1 John 3:3). We must not only live expecting Christ to return at any moment, we must also live expecting to live a long time and to have a long fruitful ministry for our Lord. These two opposing ideas are always kept in balance and under constant tension. There is a chance Jesus will come back very soon. There is also a chance we might live a long time and never personally experience the second coming. We must be living and loving while expecting both. Are you ready for His return? You don’t want to be caught off guard. Is your life making an eternal difference? When you greet our Lord, will He say, “Well done!”
It matters not when Christ returns. Are you ready today to meet Christ? His return may be this afternoon or in 30 years or 100 years. We simply do not know. But we must live every moment in obedience to God; we must love Him wholly and only and seek to glorify Him in all we do. Don’t worry about dates – you may meet Christ on your return home today. Are you ready? By the way, I have a great sermon on knowing and doing the will of God. I am fairly confident I will be able to deliver my sermon on Sunday, May 22nd. See you then.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Philippians 3:7-10
Paul had worked his entire life to build a wonderful life. Everything he had dreamed of and hoped for was coming true. Then on a dusty road to Damascus, Jesus broke into his life. Everything he thought was important become like dung. The word dung has the idea of either the excrement that comes from a dog (dog poop) or that which is thrown to the dogs. Either way, those things he thought were so important were nothing now. Nothing! All that was important to him was getting to really know Jesus. He didn’t want to know about Jesus, but to really know Jesus.
How does one get to know Jesus? There are many things you can do. However, here are three ideas you can begin today to know Christ better. First, you need to begin practicing spiritual exercises (ie Worship, Bible reading, prayer, silence, solitude, witnessing etc.). Secondly, you need to examine your life experiences. As you walk through the high and low points of life you begin to know Christ intimately and grow in his likeness. And finally, you need to begin careful elimination of sinful habits and attitudes that wreck your relationship with Christ.
•What spiritual exercises should you add to your day in order to know Christ better?
•What lessons have you learned about Christ as you walk with Him through life’s experiences?
•What do you need to eliminate from your life to get to know Christ better?
•What is really important to you? Are you building up dung or getting to know Christ?
How will your day be different? Will you be more focused on getting to know Christ better or will you continue to build up for yourself a mountain of dog poop?
How does one get to know Jesus? There are many things you can do. However, here are three ideas you can begin today to know Christ better. First, you need to begin practicing spiritual exercises (ie Worship, Bible reading, prayer, silence, solitude, witnessing etc.). Secondly, you need to examine your life experiences. As you walk through the high and low points of life you begin to know Christ intimately and grow in his likeness. And finally, you need to begin careful elimination of sinful habits and attitudes that wreck your relationship with Christ.
•What spiritual exercises should you add to your day in order to know Christ better?
•What lessons have you learned about Christ as you walk with Him through life’s experiences?
•What do you need to eliminate from your life to get to know Christ better?
•What is really important to you? Are you building up dung or getting to know Christ?
How will your day be different? Will you be more focused on getting to know Christ better or will you continue to build up for yourself a mountain of dog poop?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Baptismal Regeneration Part 1 Introduction
I think it is fair to say the belief in baptismal regeneration has been debated for many centuries. I am fairly confident it will continue to be hotly debated until our Lord returns. I am certain that my two cents worth will not change or end this great debate. Nonetheless, I have decided to throw my hat into the baptismal regeneration arena. Actually I am not looking to debate anyone. I have read countless debates of one Christian trying to convince another Christian about a certain belief they hold to. I have rarely found the debate useful in changing minds and do more to fuel controversy and divide the body of Christ. We are in a day where Christians spend far too much time debating issues of doctrine between other Christians while a lost world continues to die. Too often the debates between Christians grow bitter and demeaning. Therefore, this is not a debate. It is simply one man’s look into a difficult topic. It is more designed to aid in my church member’s education on an important topic. My greatest hope is not to change your mind but to encourage your study on this important topic. If you believe in the need of baptismal regeneration, I hope to challenge your view and to direct you to a deep study of scripture. Furthermore, I hope through this dialogue, even if you do not agree with me, you will be better able to state your position on baptismal regeneration and defend its need.
Baptismal regeneration comes down to one fairly simple question: What must I do to be saved? I am contrasting two schools of thought. First, a person is saved by grace through faith and faith alone. Secondly, a person is saved through faith in combination with baptism. The latter position believes that baptism is a requirement for salvation. I am standing upon the doctrine of the former and will attempt to show why salvation comes by grace through faith and faith alone. In upcoming postings, I will also study a few of the more difficult passages in scripture, which on the surface, seem to support the need of baptismal regeneration. In a nutshell, my position is simple: The weight of scripture and the clear teachings of God’s Word are in overwhelmingly support of salvation by grace through faith and faith alone.
As I study scripture, I hold to three very simple assumptions. First, the Bible is God’s Word. It has God for its author and salvation for its end. It is inspired by God and useful to man. Secondly, if God is the true author of the Bible, He knows what He has said in one verse and will not contradict Himself in another verse. Therefore, difficult passages must be interpreted through the lens of clearer and less “grey” scripture. In light of these three assumptions, I begin this first, of several postings examining what I believe to be the clear teachings of scripture. In my opinion, these passages show without a doubt that salvation is by grace through faith and faith alone.
I could begin a defense of salvation through faith alone in many of the New Testament books. My first passage of defense is found in the Book of Acts. In chapter 16, the jailer asks a most probing question. In fact, it is the only time in scripture where this question is asked in such a clear and concise way. The jailer asks Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved (30)?” Here is the million dollar question. In my very humble opinion, Paul settles the issue of baptismal regeneration here. Paul’s answer is as clear and concise as the jailor’s question. Paul leaves no room for debate, no room for doubt, and certainly no room for baptism. Paul says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – you and your household” (31). Could it be clearer? Paul could have said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, be baptized, join a local church, pray, and you will be saved.” He did not. In my opinion, the matter is settled once and for all. Could it be any clearer? If God is the author of the Word and has inspired Paul to say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” He will not contradict Himself in another passage and say you must include baptism to be saved.
The Gospel of John was written “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may life in His name” (20:31). If John wrote his gospel so that people might be saved, it seems as good a spot as any to begin to really examine this issue. Once again, if it is John’s position, is it not also God’s position? Notice the verse above; John says, “That by believing you may have life in His name.” It is agreed by scholars throughout, that faith and belief go hand in hand. It is further agreed that words like salvation, eternal life, forgiveness of sin, justification, and righteousness all point to the same saving work of the Holy Spirit. Once again, see what John has said, it is by believing that a person has life. He did not say by believing and baptism a person is saved. John has not left any wiggle room whatsoever.
Is this God’s position? Let’s see what a Christ has said and let God answer for Himself. The third chapter of John is great example of Jesus’ teaching on the matter of salvation. Four times in this great chapter, Jesus teaches that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life (15, 16, 18, 36). Who receives eternal life? It is the one who believes. Who is the one condemned? It is the one who does not believe. What is the basis of salvation in John chapter 3? Very simply, it is belief (We will examine the early verses of John later). When you have time, check out these other important verses that support salvation by faith (belief) alone: John 1:12; 5:24; 6:35,47; 8:24; 11:25-26. According to the Gospel of John, salvation is based upon belief and condemnation is based upon unbelief. Condemnation is never based upon whether or not a person has been baptized.
Let’s reexamine Paul’s position on this topic. It is not difficult to see what Paul believed about salvation. One does not need to go far to see that Paul’s theology (therefore God’s theology) states, “for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Throughout Paul’s letters, he states that salvation, eternal life, forgiveness of sin, justification, and righteousness is found by faith or belief in Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17; 3:22, 25-28; 4:13; 9:30-32; 10:4, 9-10, 13-14; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:15-16; 3:7-9, 3:26, Philippians 3:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Timothy 1:16).
The book of Acts also affirms this belief. Once again, Paul’s teaching and preaching affirm his stance on the doctrine of salvation through faith alone. He supports this position in Acts 13:38-39; 16:30-31; and 20; 20-21. In coming posts, we will look at Peter’s teachings on baptismal regeneration. At first glance, it looks like Peter holds to a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. As we examine a little closer, we can see another side of Peter. For instance, when he is facing the first
To believe in the need of baptism in the regenerate process, one must completely discard many verses that support a teaching of salvation by grace through faith and faith alone. It is also important to note if a person believes baptism saves, they must also accept the following:
1. There must always be water enough to baptize.
2. There must always be time enough to baptize.
3. For some denominations, there must also be an ordained minister present to administer baptism.
This belief completely throws out the possibility of a death bed conversion. I have heard some say that God makes special allowances in times where there is neither water nor time to baptize. It is either by grace through faith or by grace through works. It can not be both. If one must be baptized by water, there will be numerous people who will not have the opportunity to be baptized and will be condemned to hell for there lack of water baptism. The scripture supports a position of salvation through faith alone which enables a person to be saved at any time, in any place, and in any circumstance.
Let me reiterate, if we affirm the need of baptismal regeneration, we would simply have to throw out countless scripture and base our doctrine on a handful of passages that are grey at best. Over the coming weeks we will examine a few of these scriptures that seem to contradict a belief in salvation by faith alone and supports a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We will take a close look at the following passages: John 3:1-5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; and 1 Peter 3:21.
It is my hope that in this first posting, I have placed before enough scripture to at least begin making a case that salvation is by faith alone. There are a few verses that seemingly contradict this teaching. However, when we examine these closely, believe that God will not contradict Himself, and interpret the more difficult passages in light of clearer passages, we will build a strong case and be able to have great confidence in the amazing doctrine of salvation through faith by God’s grace alone. Is God’s grace not amazing and sufficient enough to save?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Virgin Birth
I have been raised my entire life to accept the stories of the Bible as literally true. I was biology major in College and had my beliefs tested at every turn. On what basis do I believe? Do I really believe in the story of Moses parting the Red Sea? Do I believe that Daniel was really in a den of tamed lions? Do I really believe in the story of a man swallowed by a huge fish? My answer to all of those questions is yes. It is the stories of the Bible that spark my relationship with God. It is the incredible stories of power, intervention, and faith that create the hope I have for eternity. Since we are about to celebrate another Christmas, it might be good to look at the story of the Virgin Birth. If Jesus could be born by the power of the Holy Spirit, then I have no doubt he could walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind man, and by all means be raised to life on the third day.
The Meaning of Virgin
In Matthew 1:23, Matthew quotes from the prophet Isaiah, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel.” To better understand what the word Virgin means, let us look back at two Old Testament passages. First, we will look at the passage in Isaiah 7. As we do, let us first remember our biblical history. By this time, the nation of Israel had long been divided (931 BC). There was the northern Kingdom of Israel with her 10 tribes and a series of wicked kings. After many attempts of repentance through the preaching of the prophets, God brought judgment to the northern nation of Israel in 722 B.C. at the hands of Assyria. The Southern Kingdom of Judah was established with two tribes. They had an up and down history of good and bad kings. In the year 586 B.C., God brought judgment to Judah at the hands of Babylon. However, God remembered His promise to David and was not done with Judah. There would indeed be a King from David’s line upon the throne forever. The nation of Judah would return through the ministries of Ezra and Nehemiah. Isaiah 7 took place during the divided Kingdom phase and more specifically, during the Syro-Ephraimitic War (734 – 732 B.C.) Syria and Israel had joined alliance against Assyria. Both nations had hoped Judah would join their alliance. Judah, however, declined and Syria and Israel attacked Jerusalem. It was at this point that Jerusalem was surrounded and all seemed hopeless for King Ahaz and Judah. How could Judah withstand the might of the army surrounding Jerusalem? Would God intervene to aid Judah? Could God intervene? Through Isaiah, God reminds Ahaz that He would indeed intervene. He encouraged Ahaz and the nation of Judah to keep the faith. Through Isaiah, God reminded Ahaz, that “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” Then God told Ahaz that he will give them a sign. In verse 14, God himself will give them a sign. Please note, the “you” in verse 14 is plural. The sign will be a virgin will give birth to a son.
What is a sign? Many people would like to say the word virgin means “young maiden.” It very well could mean that and does in a couple of places in scripture. But logically, what kind of sign is a young maiden giving birth. It would be like you and I saying, “A teenage girl will give birth…” Not much of a sign is it? Since God was going to give a sign, it had to be unique and unavoidable. An actual virgin is the only thing that makes since and fits the context of scripture.
Look also at Jeremiah 31:22. It says, “The Lord will create a new thing on earth a woman will surround a man.” What does “a woman will surround a man” mean? Maybe a good question would be, “How did the rabbis view this scripture?” Before the time of Christ, Rabbis wrote the following concerning this verse:
Messiah is to have no earthly father
The birth of the Messiah will be without defect. The birth of Messiah will be like that of no other man.
The birth of the Messiah will be like the dew of the Lord as drops on the grass without the action of man.
In the time of Christ’s birth, the Jewish people were expecting a “virgin birth.” I have every confidence that Matthew’s account meant Jesus would be born simply by the power of the Holy Spirit to a virgin named Mary.
The Mandate of Scripture
What if Jesus were not born of a virgin? What would it do to the Gospel?
First, it Weakens the Word. It we don’t accept the virgin birth, or if it is not literally true, what stories are true? Barna has come out with some interesting numbers: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=286
- Three out of four adults (75%) said that they believe Jesus Christ was born to a virgin
- Seven out of ten adults (69%) embraced the story of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana as being literally true
- Two out of three people (68%) view the story of the loaves and fish factually accurate.
- Most Americans (64%) have no trouble believing that the planet-altering flood actually happened, in which Noah,
- In total, 56% of adults believe that the story of the devil, disguised as a serpent and tempting Eve to sin by eating the forbidden fruit, is literally true
- Only half of the population (49%) accepts the story of Samson and his strength as completely accurate.
- Born again Christians were far more likely than non-born again adults to accept each of the six narratives as fully accurate
- Protestants were more likely than Catholics to accept each of the six stories as literally true.
It really fascinates me to see the number of people who believe certain stories of the Bible and not others. Is the entire Word of God inspired or just parts of it? The heretical group, Jesus Seminar, has taken it upon themselves to decide which of the stories and words of Jesus are true, fictitious, or simply legend and fables. The group of scholars vote with colored marbles as to the authenticity of our Lord’s words and actions. Do you see the slippery slope we put ourselves on when we try to decide which stories are true or false? If Jesus was not born of a virgin, what stories can we accept? I believe the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God and is reliable and accurate. Can I explain every story; Of course not. But would I really want to explain the actions of God? God is too big and awesome to have His works explained by a finite human mind like mine. Therefore, I believe every story from Noah’s flood to Jonah and the big fish is historically accurate and true. Furthermore, since I believe in the entire Word of God, I am able to accept that Jesus was born of a virgin; He lived a sinless perfect life; He was God in flesh; He died a substitutionary death for my sins; He is the atoning sacrifice for my sins and the sins of the entire world; He was raised to life on the third day, and He will come again.
Here is an interesting question: If 75% of the adults in America believe in the virgin birth, why does that believe not correlate into action? We have a nation who believes in the Bible yet far too many have an indifference to the things of God. If you believe in the Word of God, it must begin to change and shape your behavior. Your belief in God will always affect your behavior. If you behavior does not change, your belief is only superficial and shallow.
Secondly, if the Virgin Birth is not literal, it Waters down the Gospel. No longer could we accept the Deity of Christ. The belief of the sinlessness of Jesus would be far harder to accept. The power of Christ would even come into question. The very nature of Jesus would come into question if He had been born by natural means. But there is not doubt that Jesus is God in flesh, He was sinless, and He has divine power. The Virgin Birth supports and explains the unique claims of Jesus.
Message of Hope
The Virgin Birth reminds me of four very simple truths. First, God is able. What is impossible for man is possible for God. Secondly, God will intervene for His Glory and our good. Thirdly, God is always able to do the unexpected. Finally, God is able to “break our plans.” If there is one great lesson from the life of Mary it is this: God is looking for people who loosely hold their plans in their hands in order to allow God to intervene and break their plans. Do you think Mary grew up expecting to be the mother of God’s Son? Do you think she longed to be looked down upon by everyone in town? But God had different plans for her. God did not have an easy plan for Mary, but He had a much better plan. Mary was willing to forgo her dreams and let God do whatever He would choose to do for His glory and man’s good. How about you? What plans are you holding on too tightly? If God came to you today, would you be willing to let your future dreams die so you could align yourself with God’s plan for your life? Imagine if all those people who really believe the virgin birth would also have their behavior conformed into that of Christ’s behavior. Could you fathom what God could do? Let me assure you, if God had the power to have Mary give birth as a virgin, don’t you think He has the power to take care of you? Pray and ask God to break your plans for His glory and the good of others.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Immaculate Conception
I have a quick quiz for you. I’m sorry if you are just now waking up and your mind is a little blurry. I’m sure the last thing you want to do is take a quiz. Don’t worry, grab a cup of coffee, dust off the cob webs and dive into this one question quiz:
The Immaculate Conception deals with:
a. The birth of Jesus Christ.
b. The amazing reception by Franco Harris
c. The conception of Mary without the stain of original sin
Well, how do you think you did? If you answered b, you watch way too much football and need to seek immediate council. Before I began preaching and studying matters of faith, I believed the Immaculate Conception dealt with the birth of Jesus. I knew it was a Catholic doctrine and believed it was an area we could both agree on: the Virgin Birth of Christ. The problem is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary. The doctrine believes simply that Mary was conceived in the “usual way” but without the stain of original sin. “The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception).
The History of the Immaculate Conception
There is no way for me to completely deal with this topic. Nonetheless, I am going to outline what I have learned and give you my ideas on this topic. Around the end of the 15th Century, Catholic Popes began to make statements that would begin to clarify and be the basis for the future dogma of the church. In 1477, Sixtus the IV “praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Sixtus also condemned those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception in 1483.
In 1567, Pope St. Pius V, condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. In 1568, St. Pius V, put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Throughout the following years, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was worked out by the Popes. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX defined “ex cathedra” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope stressed that Mary’s sinlessness was not due to her own merits but truly by the merits of the son, Jesus. The dogma was written as follows:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privildge and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
“Simply stated, Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original of first sin at the beginning of human history” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
Two Errors
As I studied this issue, I realize that, as an Evangelical, I have errored in two frequent ways when thinking about the Catholic faith. First, most Evangelicals, would say that the Catholic theology of Mary would state she was not in need of salvation. However, the Catholic stance would be Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. She was a recipient of “Preventative redemption.” Preventive means anticipatory: “the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace” (www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm). In other words, Mary received redemption at the moment of her conception before her conception – before her soul joined her body and was stained by sin.
Secondly, I had a false view of Papal infallibility. I had always heard about the Papal infallibility and believed they used this power often. However, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice. Interesting enough, both occasions dealt with a doctrine concerning Mary. First, was the “Ineffabilis Deus the definition of Pope Pius IX in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Munificentissimus Deus, the definition by Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the Assumption of Mary” (http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Dogmatic_definition).
Support for the Immaculate Conception
As one studies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is glaringly evident that there is no clear scriptural evidence for this teaching. In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia states, there is “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” So the best one can do is to make an argument from silence. There are a few biblical ideas the Catholic Church puts out to support this teaching. First, they go to Genesis 3:15 and teach that there is a parallel between Mary and Eve. The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan and so the Church sees in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium #55). They go on to say, “if there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception” ((www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm).
Luke 1:28 is also used as a textual support for the Immaculate Conception. On one hand, the church says, “chaire kecharitomene, ‘Hail, full of grace’ indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary” However, they then qualify their statement by saying, “But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm).
Most people know the importance of the church teaching and traditions in the Catholic Church. The early church fathers no doubt had a very high view of Mary. However, you will not find the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church point to two positions brought forth by various Church Fathers: her absolute purity and her being named the second Eve. Even so, to build an entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on these two ideas is a great leap. Not only to have they seen Mary as the Second Eve, but also as the “Ark of the Covenant” or the Tabernacle of God. All of these ideas put forth by the church can only be reasoned from the Bible and taught from the silence of scripture.
My Objections
When dealing with a topic like this, it is important that we do not simply believe something or not because of our religious inclinations. I actually could care less what Southern Baptists believe about the Immaculate Conception. I could care less what the Catholics believe. But I am very concerned with what the Bible teaches in this area. There must be a standard of truth that we must all accept. Truth is not truth simply because someone believes it. In fact, truth can be truth even if no one believes it and a falsity can be false even if everyone believes it. There must be a standard in which we can test whether or not something is true. For the Catholic Church, the standard of truth is the Church, Tradition, and Scripture. For me, it is scripture alone.
In my study, I found a very disturbing quote. It said, “The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf Matt 28:16-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15)” (http:/www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp). Does anyone else have trouble with this idea? If one were to look at the example of scripture, it would not take long to find the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15). Luke writes, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians for they received the message with great eagerness and examined scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This is the classic example of how we are to handle teachings. We must receive it, examine it, test it and see if it is true. John tells us “…You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). This is the competency of every soulin whom the Spirit of God lives. We must test everything that is said alongside the Scripture. This is the greatest error members of cults make; they are not allowed to think on their own nor do they test what is said. They must accept everything simply because it has been said. I tell my church often, test what is said behind the pulpit. Do not test it with your personal feelings or Baptist tradition, but test it against the Living and Active Word of God. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not withstand the Scriptural test.
Not only does it fail the scriptural test, but it also fails the time test. What is one of the great arguments we give for the resurrection of Jesus? In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells the reader to go find the eyewitnesses. For a legend to become accepted, there must be time and distance. Everyone who knows the truth must be gone and their can be no one who could refute the teachings. By 380 AD, Ambrose had to already caution people not to direct to Mary the adoration due only to God. Mary was a temple of God; not the God of the temple and therefore, God alone is to be worshiped. The Apostles were gone. All eyewitnesses to the truth of Jesus’ ministry had long before died but the teachings of Mary had just begun. By 430, Mary was called the “Mother of God.” 700 it was written, “There is no one to whom the gift of grace is given except through Mary. By 1100, we have the first “Hail Mary.” In 1153, it was said that Mary is the dispenser of Grace. God has willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary. For those of you who know your church history, you realize how many extra biblical books were written during those early years. But the Apostles were not alive to refute the message. It has been written, “in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very cautious; some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.). It was easier to say men like Origen, St. Basil, and St. Chrystotom were in error than they were standing to the truth of the Word.
As you study the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one can also see a very heavy Gnostic influence. One of the basic Gnostic beliefs is that Jesus never could have carried sin because all matter was evil or sinful and hence God could not have become man nor carried sin upon him. Since Mary was going to be the “Temple of God” she could not have the stain of sin upon her. Therefore, God made allowances for her so the stain of sin would not touch Jesus.
The early Fathers had a very high view of Mary but not a worshipful view of Mary. It is only after time that this belief began to surface. While I was very encouraged the Papal Infallibility has been rarely used; am I the only one who finds it interesting that in both cases it dealt with doctrines of Mary. Since there is absolutely no biblical support, dogma had to be created and affirmed ex cathedra by the Pope. Again, if a person would use the Word has the plumb line of truth, there would be no problem.
What Should We Do With Mary?
We must continually work on a balanced view of Mary. Too often, as Evangelicals, we throw the baby out with the bath water. We are so worried of worshiping Mary that we degrade her or too often do not give her the due she is credited. The simple truth is Mary was a great woman of God. She would have had to have lived a life of purity, honor, and was found to have received great honor from God. Sadly for many of us, we could never speak of our lives in that fashion. Luke 1:28 has been misinterpreted. It simply is saying, not that Mary was a source of grace but had received grace from God. Mary was a remarkable lady and an amazing vessel of submission and surrender. We could do well to emulate the attitude of Mary when it came to surrender. Is there no greater passage of surrender than Mary’s beautiful words, “I am the Lord’s servant, May it be to me as you have said.” Wow! God really came into Mary’s life and broke up her plans. Do you think she was planning on being the Mother of Jesus? Do you really think her plans included a virgin birth? We get angry and aggravated at God when he breaks up our dinner plans for a ministry opportunity. We could do well to learn how to receive God’s break through as ministry opportunities and God glorifying occasions.
Go back to the word and discover Mary for yourself. While you will learn that she is not a co-medatrix (1 Tim 2:5), she was a mother of other children, and that Jesus is the only way of salvation (John 14:6, Acts 16:31, 15:11) you will be challenged by the wonderful life Mary lived and will be encouraged to place the same attitude of willingness into your life that Mary so gracefully lived.
The Immaculate Conception deals with:
a. The birth of Jesus Christ.
b. The amazing reception by Franco Harris
c. The conception of Mary without the stain of original sin
Well, how do you think you did? If you answered b, you watch way too much football and need to seek immediate council. Before I began preaching and studying matters of faith, I believed the Immaculate Conception dealt with the birth of Jesus. I knew it was a Catholic doctrine and believed it was an area we could both agree on: the Virgin Birth of Christ. The problem is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary. The doctrine believes simply that Mary was conceived in the “usual way” but without the stain of original sin. “The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception).
The History of the Immaculate Conception
There is no way for me to completely deal with this topic. Nonetheless, I am going to outline what I have learned and give you my ideas on this topic. Around the end of the 15th Century, Catholic Popes began to make statements that would begin to clarify and be the basis for the future dogma of the church. In 1477, Sixtus the IV “praised the liturgical celebration of the Immaculate Conception. Sixtus also condemned those who said it was sinful to preach and believe the Immaculate Conception in 1483.
In 1567, Pope St. Pius V, condemned the error of Baius who said Our Lady was subject to original sin. In 1568, St. Pius V, put the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the calendar of the Roman breviary. Throughout the following years, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was worked out by the Popes. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX defined “ex cathedra” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Pope stressed that Mary’s sinlessness was not due to her own merits but truly by the merits of the son, Jesus. The dogma was written as follows:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privildge and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
“Simply stated, Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original of first sin at the beginning of human history” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
Two Errors
As I studied this issue, I realize that, as an Evangelical, I have errored in two frequent ways when thinking about the Catholic faith. First, most Evangelicals, would say that the Catholic theology of Mary would state she was not in need of salvation. However, the Catholic stance would be Mary needed redemption, although she was never subject to original sin. She was a recipient of “Preventative redemption.” Preventive means anticipatory: “the grace she received at her conception was given in anticipation of Christ’s merits, which earned that grace” (www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm). In other words, Mary received redemption at the moment of her conception before her conception – before her soul joined her body and was stained by sin.
Secondly, I had a false view of Papal infallibility. I had always heard about the Papal infallibility and believed they used this power often. However, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice. Interesting enough, both occasions dealt with a doctrine concerning Mary. First, was the “Ineffabilis Deus the definition of Pope Pius IX in 1854 concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Munificentissimus Deus, the definition by Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the Assumption of Mary” (http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Dogmatic_definition).
Support for the Immaculate Conception
As one studies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is glaringly evident that there is no clear scriptural evidence for this teaching. In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia states, there is “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” So the best one can do is to make an argument from silence. There are a few biblical ideas the Catholic Church puts out to support this teaching. First, they go to Genesis 3:15 and teach that there is a parallel between Mary and Eve. The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan and so the Church sees in “the woman” a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium #55). They go on to say, “if there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception” ((www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm).
Luke 1:28 is also used as a textual support for the Immaculate Conception. On one hand, the church says, “chaire kecharitomene, ‘Hail, full of grace’ indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary” However, they then qualify their statement by saying, “But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm).
Most people know the importance of the church teaching and traditions in the Catholic Church. The early church fathers no doubt had a very high view of Mary. However, you will not find the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. The Catholic Church point to two positions brought forth by various Church Fathers: her absolute purity and her being named the second Eve. Even so, to build an entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on these two ideas is a great leap. Not only to have they seen Mary as the Second Eve, but also as the “Ark of the Covenant” or the Tabernacle of God. All of these ideas put forth by the church can only be reasoned from the Bible and taught from the silence of scripture.
My Objections
When dealing with a topic like this, it is important that we do not simply believe something or not because of our religious inclinations. I actually could care less what Southern Baptists believe about the Immaculate Conception. I could care less what the Catholics believe. But I am very concerned with what the Bible teaches in this area. There must be a standard of truth that we must all accept. Truth is not truth simply because someone believes it. In fact, truth can be truth even if no one believes it and a falsity can be false even if everyone believes it. There must be a standard in which we can test whether or not something is true. For the Catholic Church, the standard of truth is the Church, Tradition, and Scripture. For me, it is scripture alone.
In my study, I found a very disturbing quote. It said, “The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf Matt 28:16-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15)” (http:/www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp). Does anyone else have trouble with this idea? If one were to look at the example of scripture, it would not take long to find the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15). Luke writes, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians for they received the message with great eagerness and examined scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This is the classic example of how we are to handle teachings. We must receive it, examine it, test it and see if it is true. John tells us “…You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). This is the competency of every soulin whom the Spirit of God lives. We must test everything that is said alongside the Scripture. This is the greatest error members of cults make; they are not allowed to think on their own nor do they test what is said. They must accept everything simply because it has been said. I tell my church often, test what is said behind the pulpit. Do not test it with your personal feelings or Baptist tradition, but test it against the Living and Active Word of God. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not withstand the Scriptural test.
Not only does it fail the scriptural test, but it also fails the time test. What is one of the great arguments we give for the resurrection of Jesus? In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells the reader to go find the eyewitnesses. For a legend to become accepted, there must be time and distance. Everyone who knows the truth must be gone and their can be no one who could refute the teachings. By 380 AD, Ambrose had to already caution people not to direct to Mary the adoration due only to God. Mary was a temple of God; not the God of the temple and therefore, God alone is to be worshiped. The Apostles were gone. All eyewitnesses to the truth of Jesus’ ministry had long before died but the teachings of Mary had just begun. By 430, Mary was called the “Mother of God.” 700 it was written, “There is no one to whom the gift of grace is given except through Mary. By 1100, we have the first “Hail Mary.” In 1153, it was said that Mary is the dispenser of Grace. God has willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary. For those of you who know your church history, you realize how many extra biblical books were written during those early years. But the Apostles were not alive to refute the message. It has been written, “in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very cautious; some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.). It was easier to say men like Origen, St. Basil, and St. Chrystotom were in error than they were standing to the truth of the Word.
As you study the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one can also see a very heavy Gnostic influence. One of the basic Gnostic beliefs is that Jesus never could have carried sin because all matter was evil or sinful and hence God could not have become man nor carried sin upon him. Since Mary was going to be the “Temple of God” she could not have the stain of sin upon her. Therefore, God made allowances for her so the stain of sin would not touch Jesus.
The early Fathers had a very high view of Mary but not a worshipful view of Mary. It is only after time that this belief began to surface. While I was very encouraged the Papal Infallibility has been rarely used; am I the only one who finds it interesting that in both cases it dealt with doctrines of Mary. Since there is absolutely no biblical support, dogma had to be created and affirmed ex cathedra by the Pope. Again, if a person would use the Word has the plumb line of truth, there would be no problem.
What Should We Do With Mary?
We must continually work on a balanced view of Mary. Too often, as Evangelicals, we throw the baby out with the bath water. We are so worried of worshiping Mary that we degrade her or too often do not give her the due she is credited. The simple truth is Mary was a great woman of God. She would have had to have lived a life of purity, honor, and was found to have received great honor from God. Sadly for many of us, we could never speak of our lives in that fashion. Luke 1:28 has been misinterpreted. It simply is saying, not that Mary was a source of grace but had received grace from God. Mary was a remarkable lady and an amazing vessel of submission and surrender. We could do well to emulate the attitude of Mary when it came to surrender. Is there no greater passage of surrender than Mary’s beautiful words, “I am the Lord’s servant, May it be to me as you have said.” Wow! God really came into Mary’s life and broke up her plans. Do you think she was planning on being the Mother of Jesus? Do you really think her plans included a virgin birth? We get angry and aggravated at God when he breaks up our dinner plans for a ministry opportunity. We could do well to learn how to receive God’s break through as ministry opportunities and God glorifying occasions.
Go back to the word and discover Mary for yourself. While you will learn that she is not a co-medatrix (1 Tim 2:5), she was a mother of other children, and that Jesus is the only way of salvation (John 14:6, Acts 16:31, 15:11) you will be challenged by the wonderful life Mary lived and will be encouraged to place the same attitude of willingness into your life that Mary so gracefully lived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)