'Catholics Come Home' part 1: The Eucharist

Some of you may have noticed the commercials on TV, pictures of family as a voice reads off values many Americans value and then the credentials for the Roman Catholic Church, some of which are plainly wrong. I went to their website, 'catholicscomehome.org' to see what it was all about to discover that the Catholics are now taking televangelism a step further by trying to 'evangelize' via the internet. Under the title 'teachings of the church' I clicked on 'the Eucharist' to see what the 'holy' Roman Catholic Church teaches on the Euchatist. Underneath that heading there were commonly asked questions to which some unknown catholic, assumably with the full authority of the 'holy' Roman Catholic Church had answered. One of these questions was "Why do protestants not believe John 6 when it says that Jesus' flesh was real food and that His blood was real drink?" I want to take a moment to examine the answer and justification given by 'Catholics Come Home"



The answer I believe speaks volumes more than the justification given, being simply: "I don't know." Amazing that they can tell us we are wrong but not why. Having stated thus I will show why the justification given by the Catholics and their current understanding on the Eucharist are incorrect. In their opening statement they refer to the places in the gospel where the Eucharist is first obserbeved / instated, Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22. In these Christ very clearly does state that "This is my body" and "This is my blood". Obviously he did not just cut off a part of his body to feed them, nor did he cut himself and bleed into the cup that they might drink his blood so Christ is clearly not making an indicitive statement as to what it is, unless of course, he is NOT speaking literally as the Catholics claim him to be. Here is the root of their error, that they cannot discern what is literal and what is not literal. A statement does not need to say that it is not literal for us to know that it is not literal. Indeed, lets look at Matthew 26 a little closer. After the cup is passed around and all drink of 'blood' according to Catholics, he says "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine..." clearly refering to the contents of the cup. Thus the church, seeing it's error states that it is equal to scripture (even though it's not) and proceeds to introduce contradictory doctrines to explain away the inconsistency, such as that the bread isn't actually flesh (even though they must if Christ's statements are to be taken literally) and that it's 'substance' changes though it's physical existence does not. Scripture does not say anything of the sort, thus the church should not either.



But on to their second argument, that in John 6 Jesus repeats himself stating that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. To this I must say that the person writing this is clearly doing so in a buble with utter disregard for all other doctrines and ultimately relying on the Church's self proclamation to always be right, rather than searching for truth itself. Why do I say such a thing? Let's think about this statement for a second...this means they (unless they are to blatantly admit to hypocracy and being wrong) believe that Jesus Christ was actually bread. That is the literall meaning of "I am the bread" is it not? This is exactly what they argue here, that he was literal. Just think, that Chirst was not only fully man, and fully God, but fully bread and fully wine as well! That he lived for decades and never molded! I should formally put forth to the Roman Catholic Church that this be formally added to the list of miracles performed by God. But what would they say, they'd of course say that Jesus wasn't bread. (And would thus be hypocrites) No one in their right mind would take this literally, but instead understand it to be more like a metaphor where Christ tells us truly that he will make ammends for sins, that his body will be the sacrifice and that he is utterly right in his comparison to the bread sent from heaven in the time of Moses, which was his original point. In the same thread we can understand Christ to be present in the Eucharist, not by it physically being flesh, but metaphorically, by doing it in remembrance of him. (Luke 22:17)



Now on to some of their 'facts' to prove their point. Their first fact was that in John 6, the Jews took Christ's claim to be bread and wine literally. This is true, absolutely and undeniably. What the Catholics fail to realize is that these Jews were not saved, many were not his disciples and absolutely none of them understood what Jesus meant by telling them that he was bread from heaven (very similar to the 'holy' Roman Catholic Church). Their second fact was that the disciples took him seriously. This one is more tenous, what they said was "This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?" Even granting the Catholics the benefit of the doubt that the disciples doubts were actually belief (although doubt and belief are in fact quite opposite) many of the disciples abandoned Jesus (vs 66). Thier final 'fact' is not even a fact. They claim that the apostles took him seriously siting verses 67-69 which actually say "'You do not want to leave too, do you?' Juses asked the twelve. Simon Peter aswered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.'" Please not that they are affirming belief in the fact that he is the saviour, the Messiah, the Holy One of God, but not that he is made of bread, nor that a piece of bread placed into the mouth of a believer by a priest is Christ's body.



Now for the trickiest lie in the apologetic document of the Catholics. They use verse 51, where Christ says "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world", and then say (truthfuly) that Christ's sacrifice was on the cross and then attempt to say that if you believe (as I do) that the body is not actually bread, you must believe that it wasn't Jesus' body on the cross but ssymbolic flesh and symbolic blood, and that his entire death was nothing but symbolic. This makes me want to punch someone, and I will show you why. First I do not at all miss the irony of the Catholics daring to call someone else for being inconsitent, and they have it backwards. If you literally believe that Christ was made of bread (as the Catholics must) then it wasn't Christ on the cross, but physical bread! The truth, however is contained in scripture: "The bread is my body". In this statement Christ makes the metaphor compleat! He stops speaking in metaphor and plainly tells them it's meaning, he does not merely restate a falsehood. Christ himself is telling them that the bread is representative of his body in the coming sacrifice, and indeed I would even argue that 'eats' is metaphoric. Clearly eating Christ's body does not save you, belief in his atonement on the cross does. To believe in Christ's sacrifice of his real body (made of muscle, sinew and fat, not bread) is to 'eat of the bread of heaven which is his flesh'. It's all a beautiful metaphor which we remember in communion, not magic performed by a priest to turn bread into flesh. That is why I, and other Protestants, believe that the bread of communion is not actually the body of Jesus nor that the wine of communion is actually the blood of Christ either.

Christmas?

Few things have the power to get under my skin more than 'Christmas'. So few people know anything about Christmas. The well educated may well know that Christmas is placed on December 25th due to the pagan holiday of Saturnalia. These people may also know that this was not so with the very early Christian church and was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. But really, how many everyday average people know and understand this? And how many of the people who do apply this?

My senior year in high school, about this time of year, I did a research paper based on the common Christian knowledge of Christmas. For the paper I asked every Christian who would take the survey questions about Christmas such as how long Christmas was, when it started, how many gospels contain a 'Christmas story', how many wise men there were, what gifts they brought, when the wise men visited Jesus etc etc. The results were horrific. I don't have the paper with me right now to give the exact results, but I do remember that only 1 of 25 polled people would have 'passed' if I had graded it like a test. In fact, everyone reading this should answer the questions listed above to see how well they'd do. Now for the answers. Christmas lasts for 12 days. It begins Christmas day. Only two gospels contain a christmas story: Matthew And Luke. Neither of the gospels specify the number of magi that visited Christ; the common answer of 'three' comes from the three gifts. The magi did not visit Christ as a child, they visited him much later, most experts agreeing on 5 or 6 years old.

Back to the point I wanted to make, few Christians know anything about Christmas because a culture of consumerism has pushed santa clause and presents on us. Stereotypical nativity scenes are as christian as you'll find in todays secular world. No magnificent saviour is presented to save us from our sins, just a little baby in a manger. Christmas builds up to Christmas day with sales and Santa all to end abruptly December 26th with 'after Christmas sales'. Christmas does not end Dec. 26th, its just getting under way! Celebrating Christmas during advent cheapens the holiday, makes Christians blend in with the unsaved, and promotes a commercialism which is contrary to what Christmas is about.

In response to this many Christians have rightly noticed that Christmas was not celebrated by the early church nor is it set out in the scriptures, and have decided to not celebrate Christmas at all. To these people I say 'more power to you'. But to those of us who want to have a set aside time to celebrate the birth of the saviour, we need to have an established time to do so. We need to have a time that is set aside for worshiping the saviour, and it's not a Christmas eve service, its a season. It should not be dictated by the culture around us in the same way that nothing in the Christian life should be dictated by non-Christians.

Some Christians have also seen this point and embarked on a quest to "Put Christ back in Christmas". They have such sayings as "Jesus is the reason for the season" and such not, but are ultimately doomed to fail as long as we let the world tell us when and what Christmas is. If you want to take back the meaning of Christmas, take back the time of Christmas. Put Christmas in it's proper time and celebrate Advent when it should be celebrated.

Long time coming

I've wanted to talk about this for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it for many different reasons, but am now making time for it. Those of you who know me personally know that I am not a fan of the "Sinner's Prayer". I have for a while now, been opposed to this for numerous different reasons and now want to make my argument against it. Being reformed in my theology I cannot endorse or tolerate the "Sinner's Prayer" because it is come from bad theology and leads to bad theology. The methods used along side the sinner's prayer, such as the alter call are designed for one purpose; quick conversions. It is driven by a results oriented evangelism. This is particularly repulsive to me because when people feel that they must get results from their evangelism they have boasted. They claim responsibility for what is not theirs. Please allow me to elaborate.

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." I have debated this verse with friends and 'frenemies' alike and heard numerous defenses of their points grounded in the original greek, however, what I want to bring out in this verse is that the grace through faith unto salvation is a gift and not a work. I now want to show what a work is; work: Something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of a person or thing. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/work). Salvation is not a work. Nor is grace. Nor is faith. Indeed even the people I have debated against would not disagree that faith is a work, they all adamantly say that faith is separate from works, yet they disagree that it is a gift. I am told by one that I must believe and accept Christ to be saved. Yet let's look at this with the understanding of the person whom said this to me; that faith is not a gift, but something man puts forth. 'I must exert effort to believe in goal of salvation' is what the man is saying, yet this is the very definition of a work! And Ephesians says that the grace through faith unto salvation is not a work!

Why did I bring up that aside? To demonstrate that though men may claim faith is not a work, may claim that faith is opposite of works, their actions and doctrines may say differently. Example Gratia: The "Sinner's Prayer". People are told that if they want to go to heaven / avoid hell / know Jesus / have prosperity and inner peace / etc etc etc... they need to pray this prayer and if they mean it, really mean it then Jesus will come into their hearts. Look at what has just been done. The salvation by grace through faith has just become a work. Why? Because it is now dependent upon what man puts forth; the sincerity of a prayer. Now that it is of man's acceptance, of his sincerity, man may boast and have the power to contradict Holy Scripture, right? Wrong. What happens is that Holy Scripture contradicts man. When 'salvation' is of the works of man it is no longer salvation.

Let me take a brief aside here and plainly state that I do not believe that all the people who have prayed the sinner's prayer are going to hell. Indeed I do believe that many of them are genuine in their faith as has been given to them by God whom has drawn them. Yet I must make painfully clear that I do believe multitudes of the people being sold this humanistic caltrop are not saved because they have 'saved' themselves.

Notice that I said those whose faith is sincere and are genuinely saved are saved not because of the prayer but in spite of it. It is because their faith has been given to them by God whom has drawn them. (John 6:44). Now look at how ridiculous it is to believe contrary to this. aka to believe that an unregenerate, unsaved individual can create faith and cry to God and be saved. Romans 8:7 "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." Sinful men / unsaved men, cannot submit to God's law. Why then do we suppose that they can beg forgiveness of sins convicted by the law? This is preposterous, but it is the notion that the sinner's prayer is founded on and the notion which the sinner's prayer perpetuates.

A favorite text of decisionalists whom support and defend the sinner's prayer is John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" they then claim that you must receive him as if this is an action which man is able to undertake! What they neglect to do is read John 1:13: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." These people whom received Jesus did so not of the will of man. Yet the sinner's prayer and modern Christendom is willing to throw aside all scriptures which say such and misinterpret other passages to accomplish their means; defending the sinner's prayer and gathering in numbers as to how effective their evangelism is. Why do they do this? So that they may boast.

The sinner's prayer is not of God. It has no place in the church nor in evangelism. It is a wicked tool of man. Brothers and sisters I plead with you in joining me and standing against the sinner's prayer. Do not suffer it henceforth but instead cling to the holy word of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Church Council

Sorry for the lack of posts during July; it's a busy month for me. This July has been even more busy than normal given that I'm taking summer classes and, as the title foreshadows, I have spoken to my church council from my home congregation. The church council held a meeting to discuss the future of the church and the (strong) possibility of leaving the ELCA. My church turns 183 years old this coming Sunday, and we are debating the possibility of not turning 184 with the ELCA. It is a very exciting time in our church's history.

My home congregation is in a good position right now; we are financially independent and our constitution is written so that the congregation owns the church building and the land its on. Basically, there are no legal hoops to jump through when we want to leave the ELCA, we need only inform them that we are no longer one with them.

Thus I decided to address the church council. Instead of focusing the 2009 decision, which is already unpopular in our congregation, I focused on the faults of the ELCA that lead up to this decision. The good news is that our congregation is now investigating other denominations to join. The bad news is that at the top of the list is the Lutheran CORE and the North American Lutheran Chruch (? it may be in some other order). The NALC will basically be the ELCA pre-2009. Now if you followed that extremely confusing sentence you are doing pretty good!

The three main points of my speech, and my three main arguments against the NALC stand thus: 1) the loss of scriptural inerrancy, 2) the absence of evangelism, and 3) the loss of teachings of the reformation. The NALC will be plagued by the same faults that lead the ELCA into the 2009 decision. Thus the hardest part of my battle is yet to come. I cannot allow my congregation to go to the NALC because it will be no better off than the ELCA in 50 years. Indeed we are not called to walk the higher road, but the high road in absolute; better than the ELCA is simply not good enough.

Solus Christus

A new tactic. John 12:37-50

The title is "A new tactic" because up until now I have chosen something I wish to speak on and gone to get scriptures to back up my point. This however is dangerous because anyone can do it to support almost any point. In fact this is being written because of a video I saw on youtube supporting universal salvation. The video quoted John 12:47 ⁴⁷"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it." The bold was added by the video's maker. I, being astounded that the bible said this quickly went to the verse to discover the truth. As I suspected, the video's maker had added emphasis to what he wanted to make the verse say and ignored verse 48: "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." Thus they twisted scripture in an attempt to mean that there would be no judgment even when we are clearly told there will be. Thus I will attempt in this post to quickly go through the above passage and point out the interesting stuff that I see there instead of picking scriptures and risk making the same error as witnessed above.

Verse 37 begins this section by saying that even after Jesus had performed these deeds of power there were still those who would not believe. Now I have at least one friend in particular who would probably do to use this verse to support his idea that belief / faith must be put forth by man, and can be put forth by man freely unto his salvation. This idea makes faith into a work even though we are told repeatedly that faith is not a work. Here is where reading the entire passage is vital. Continue reading through verse 49: "For this reason they could not believe..." Here we have the point I wish to make: Faith is a gift. God hardens and softens men's hearts and calls them unto salvation and gives them unto belief in Jesus for the sake of Jesus. I may later write a post on faith as a gift in which I pull from many verses, but for now I wish to continue with the passage.

Continuing through vs 41 we see "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." This is important because I have actually had the displeasure to hear someone tell me that the Old Testament never referred to Christ (surprisingly enough he claimed to be christian!). This specifically ties together the old and the new so as to show that Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Christ didn't pop up out of nowhere; his arrival was expected for many centuries.

Now to verses 42 & 43where we see that some of the leaders believed in him but would not confess him for fear of being thrown out of the synagogue. Here the bible does not explicitly say that these men did not have salvation, but by interpreting scripture with other scripture as one ought I would say that sense they would not /(could not) confess with their mouth that they have no assurance of salvation. They were unwilling /(unable?) to take up their crosses and follow him and could not have been his disciples. These men should serve as a lesson to us not to love our life more than Christ.

I'm now going to go a little out of order and address vs 47. I have heard people use this verse to say that Christ does not judge, that we should not judge, that all have salvation...etc...yet we see that this is not the case by looking to verses 44 -46. Here Christ tells us that he came so that those who believe in him should not walk in darkness but have light. The point of 47 therefore isn't that there is no judgment, but that Christ came to save. Indeed looking to verse 48 we see that there will be judgment on the last day. (This does bring up the idea of the trinity and how all three are one and yet distinct in the God-head which I shall not get into here).

Finally we have here Christ again saying that he is one with the Father. Verses 49 and 50 tell us that Christ has brought this to us from the Father. This is both giving authority to his words and giving authority to himself since he is one with the Father. Thus none of these words are to be divorced from one another. All are greatly important and from a divine origin.

I hope ya'll found something interesting and insightful in what I have said here and that you will all take it to heart.

A Brother in Christ,
Matthew Shealy

It don't mean a thang if it ain't got that...theology

I have many topics currently on my mind which I could speak about, I feel that a post comparing worship music to traditional hymns is in order. Being involved with the Navigator's ministry on campus, I have been exposed to many good things which are not done in a more traditional church, it has however exposed me to a weakness; their music. I beg now that those reading who enjoy worship music to bear with me through what is undoubtedly going to be a long post and know that this is not intended to be a meaningless diatribe against worship music, but a thoughtful, loving critique for the benefit of all believers.

I wish to start my critique with the obvious; worship music is extremely repetitive lyrically speaking, and is structured in a way which resembles most secular music, musically speaking. This is important to point out because I have several friends who hold (vocally) the opinion that one should listen only to worship music, save possibly for Classical music. I am amazed that anyone could hold this opinion or dare to call it 'worship' music. Why do I make such a bold claim? Because most worship music worships one thing: Man. Take the song "I'm trading my sorrows" by Darell Evans (?) for example. Look at the very title: "I'm trading my sorrows" the song goes on to explain how he is choosing to trade all the bad things in life "for the joy of the Lord". Firstly, this reeks of decisional theology, something I have written on extensively in the past, an evil which should not be abided. Secondly, for those who insist upon thinking that they choose God, look at the inherent message: 'I'm choosing salvation and it won't have any sorrow or pain or sickness'. What Paul would have said to such! All throughout scripture we are promised persecution! And here is a song with a catchy melody, a repetitive beat proclaiming that we can choose to have peace and joy, no strings attached! This is simply un-acceptable. I hardly feel that I need to critique it's chorus "Yes Lord, yes Lord, yes yes Lord (3x) Amen", but I shall. Find me anywhere in scripture where such caltrop as this is found. (Excluding in the Message 'bible' which I have also written on and do not classify as the bible). This 'chorus' is nothing more than an extension of the idea of a hypnotic beat to cover for the lack of substance within the song. In fact, the song loses nothing if you substitute 'dot' for 'yes' and 'dash' for 'Lord'.

Now let's compare this to one of the most beautiful hymns: "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence". But first a brief aside to the nature of hymns. Hymns are repetetive musically and very rich lyrically specifically designed to elevate what is being sung above the singer or the pleasure of the people listening. This is in direct contradiction to the ways of secular music to the point that someone who has never heard of hymns would immediately recognize it as something entirely different from what they know. (Unlike the song "slow fade" which still has me in confusion as to why it is even considered "Christian" and not secular). Now back to the hymn in specific. The title of 'Let all mortal flesh keep silence' already sets the tone for the hymn; not focused on man. The hymn is not about man, his decision, his horrible life, his gain, his anything. The hymn is totally about God. It exists expressly for the purpose of glorifying God. The hymn opens with a warning to mortal flesh and an exaltation to God. It continues in the second stanza speaking on the God made flesh, born of Mary yet King of Kings. The second stanza ends with "he will give to all the faithful his own self for heavenly food" alluding to Holy Communion and substitutionary atonement. The hymn closes with a scene from Revelations chapters 4 & 5. How drastically different from "I'm trading my sorrows"

My point here is this: most worship music is centered around MAN. Most hymns are centered around GOD. Man has become infatuated with himself and written songs to tickle his own ears. Even when he does not realize it, he has fallen prey to his own vanity in making songs which his ears prefer because they are 'cooler' or 'more relevant'. Be wary as to what the song praises! Examine it to see who it is talking about. Such songs as: "I'm trading my sorrows", "Slow Fade", "Lord I lift your name on high", "I can only imagine", "I will not forget you"...etc...are not worthy of being called worship music because they elevate man, man's actions and man's response above God.

This does not mean however that all worship music is bad or that all hymns are good. There is a hymn set to the tune of Ebenezer (one of my favorite tunes) called "Once to every Man and Nation". This is quite possibly one of the worst hymns I have encountered. This hymn praises one thing; man. "some great choice, some great decision" it preaches a decisional theology and is nothing but blatant Armenianism and relativism. Look at this line from vs 3; "New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient goods uncouth"! So much for God being the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...clearly truth changes with time. On the other hand there is good worship music. The best I can think of is "In Christ Alone". This song has everything a song could want! The doctrine within the song is so wonderful, teaching Christ alone. The entire song goes through the gospel message. This is a song that should be sung because it glorifies God in every respect, and makes naught of man.

Thus dear brothers and sisters, I implore you to pay attention to what you sing. Do not merely go with the flow, but carefully examine, not only your songs, but your entire life to determine whether it is bringing God glory.

Soli Deo Gloria

South Carolina ELCA Synod Meeting 2010

The title pretty much covers this one, no hidden meaning or enticing opening sentence. This is about the convention the South Carolina Synod of the ELCA had this past weekend on June 4, and 5. I went as a youth delegate from St. Mark's congregation along with my Pastor, Mr. Anthony and Mrs. Sebrina. Here are some of the high lights, my thoughts and what I have learned form going there.

I do sincerely hope that the pro-gay people martialed their forces for this event in order to appear more numerous than they really are, becuase if what I saw there is proportional to the SC Synod at large, then we are in hot water. Apparently the SC Synod had no definition of marrige prior to the meeting, or we just love redundant redundancy, because we had to debate and vote on a resolution regarding defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The resolution met considerable opposition, and this has me worried. One man attempted to modify the resolution so that the definition of marriage would also depend on the laws of South Carolina! Luckily this modification failed. Among the arguments which I shall term 'pro gay' or 'team gay', was one which was put forth as such; "Marriage is not an institution of the church. It is an institution of the state. When you get married isn't when you go to the church and say your vows, it's when you sign the paper work, and when you get divorced, you do paper work, you don't even go the the church at all, thus it is none of the church's business to define marriage." At first I thought he was kidding, or crazy and no one would take him seriously. Then I heard a man at the table behind me say "Hey, he's right, you don't go to the church to get a divorce!" Turns out the people behind me were team gay. This made things considerably awkward since I was on 'team God' or 'team soli scriptura' or 'team reformation' or 'team Luther' or...you get the point. I later asked the man in regards to the comment if the reason you don't go to the church to get a divorce was because we should not be divorced in the eyes of the church. To this he had no reply but to shake his head and walk away. When all was said and done, the resolution for the definition of marriage passed - narrowly. The votes (normally done by raising colored cards and the bishop deciding who has more) were so close that they had to be counted.

I could continue to go and list all the horrible arguments and their logical and theological flaws but I shall forgo that save a few special cases. One of such being (from team gay) an argument going thus; "Let me tell you something about pastors, I have known horrible pastors before, drunkards, fornicators, one who beat his family...etc etc etc...so why should we make such a big deal out of a homosexual in a 'commited, life-long, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship'"? First off, I must say that one cannot me monogamous if one is NOT MARRIED. Also, how is said one to be publicly accountable if they willfully deny scripture against homosexuality, fornication, and the standards pastors should meet? What is left for them to be publicly accountable for? After the man declared that he had read scripture and found no such reason to deny a person from becoming a pastor, I asked him (privately) if he had ever read 1 Timothy. He said he had, and it was not relevant because of the bad straight pastors he had met. I told him that this did not make 1 Timothy irrelevant, but more relevant and asked him, if instead of pushing for the ordination of gays that he should not instead be more vigorously seeking to protect the position of pastor by the standards put forth in 1 Timothy. He began explaining to me that the bible wasn't free of errors because it was written by man a very long time ago when they couldn't comprehend what we are facing now and that it was not relative to the problem today. I felt compelled to punch him in the face, or at least beat him with my bible, but I decided instead to simply walk away. This is but one of the MANY cases where I saw humanism, armenianism, and liberalism in people's hearts and minds. I figured that if he was a specimen of what the church was preaching, then the church was in hotter water than I thought.

Then I heard the sermon at the Friday worship service. I tell you honestly that Dietrich Bonhoeffer rolled over in his grave. If he had been there, though as sworn pacifist, I feel sure he would have at least had some harsh words for the preacher, who happened to be our bishop. The sermon was about the rich young man who comes to the Lord and asks how to gain eternal life. Christ tells him to go and sell everything he has, give it all to the poor and to follow him. The young man goes away sad, because he has many things and cannot part with them. By the end of the sermon, our bishop was saying this: "My mama had a good hermeneutic on this. She would say that a modern man came to Jesus and asked how big a check he would have to write out to get into heaven. Jesus replies 'no need, just give me the checkbook'." The story goes on through cash, credit card, car, house, and wife, and finally Christ says 'now give me yourself' and the man, seeing as he has nothing else to lose, gives himself to Christ. (I would like to make the aside here that this is the most despicable teaching of decisional theology I have ever heard). He continues the story saying that Christ then gives it all back and says (and I quote) "I never really wanted all that stuff, you can have it back. All I wanted is a room in your house and to sit beside you in your car, and maybe for you to give a tithing at church on Sundays". Bonhoeffer is dead not only in the flesh but in the eyes of the church. Here is our own bishop trading the Costly Grace of Christ for the cheap grace of the world! Here was my bishop trying to sell Jesus as some accessory to make your life better, or an insurance policy into heaven.

I do realize now, that this post is becoming rather long, but I pray that you my brothers and sisters in Christ would bear with me.

Saturday afternoon we had three guest speakers for our 'workshops' which are traditionally used to cover three issues facing the church. All three of them this year were about stewardship (of money), tithing, and planned giving. Having no correlation at all to the whiney little yankee they sent from the Nationwide Church to talk about how they don't have enough money (the nation wide church's budget got cut by 21% since 2009). ((To those who have much more will be given, but to those who have little even that shall be taken from them)). Anyway, the guy talked about how he had left his house in the hands of a steward (one of his students from seminary) and expected it to be in order, ready for his arrival when he came home, not destroyed, ill cared for or with the locks changed and the steward now claiming to be the owner. Then the scene from the Lord of the Rings hit me. Gandalf walks towards Denethor and Denethor says: "I'll not bow to this ranger from the north" and Gandalf replies "Power is not given to you to deny the return of the King, Steward." It then struck me, with heart rending clarity that team gay was Denethor saying "we will not bow to this scripture from man" and team God, Gandalf, saying "Power is not given to you to deny the return of the king". I then knew that though team gay says "Christ is Lord, and we are but stewards of all he has given us" they do not believe it, nor practice it. In regards to 1 Corinthians 11 they do not recognize the body of Christ and eat and drink condemnation upon themselves at the communion table. The communion table is to be guarded. After my pastor telling me that Lutherans aren't Calvinists because Luther didn't believe in predestination and neither do we, and that Lutherans also don't recognize the inerrancy of scripture, I have realized that the communion table is to be guarded from the ELCA.

Today was my last day of communing in the ELCA. I can not approach the communion table anymore with clear conscience for the knowledge of whom I commune with. The ELCA SC Synod Assembly has shown me, not that I am not Lutheran, but that Lutherans are not Lutherans. It has shown me that God no longer leads the church but Satan. It has shown me that none of the great fathers and disciples of the Reformation would smile upon the ELCA. Thus, I intend to call a congregational meeting as soon as possible to urge our congregation to seek reconciliation with the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. If my congregation will not go, then I shall be left with no alternative but to leave the congregation behind. I would here use the words of Christ 'it is finished' but those were joyful words of our salvation, and these are heavy, sad words of condemnation, not worthy of those words of Christ. Here me ye Lutherans of the ELCA! You are in an apostate church, a Christless church and must repent! Flee the ELCA or eat and drink condemnation upon yourselves. Consider this my leaving town and shaking off the dust from my sandals. I do wish to say that with tears I pray that we may still be reconciled, not to each other, but to Christ, and that do not say these words hastily or with spiteful anger, but with consideration. I put my grannie in tears and my aunt into a rage when I announced that we must leave the ELCA or find new congregations and that with or without them I would do so. I do not make this call to all of you lightly to do as I am doing, but as the scripture says: "he who does not hate his own family, he cannot be my disciple".

Grace and Peace,
Matthew Shealy

The Docrine of Predestination

I am writing this in order to clarify some of my earlier posts and some of the Calvinistic views of scripture, and to try to explain the doctrine of predestination to a friend. All men are sinful by nature. (see my post "The Glory of God is made perfect in weakness" for details) God damns men to 'the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth' (aka hell) because of their sin. (He is just in doing so because all men have sinned and the wages of sin is death). This does not imply that man is able to do anything but sin, indeed he is unable. (Man is a slave to sin, in it's total control). Then Christ comes to the world (compromised of all men), not just the Jews, and dies so that whoever believes will not die. This does not mean that we can choose to believe, indeed the Father draws us to belief and to the Son (John 6). This is predestination.

The reason most people don't believe in the Calvinistic view of predestination is because they are at heart prideful. They somehow believe that God owes them something, like the choice to go to heaven. They believe that they have 'Free Will' a doctrine I have not yet found within scripture. They take 'free will' from passages such as 'choose you today who you shall serve' (Joshua 24:15) to mean that they can choose God. This is plainly not so. They say, "no just God could punish a man for something he cannot help but to do (speaking about sinning)' but the truth of the matter is that unrepentant man 'chooses' sin because he is by nature (aka by design aka by predestination) sinful. (Romans 7:5 sets forth flesh and the sinful nature to be synonymous). "The sinful mind is hostile to God" -Romans 8:7

Point blank: God does predestine people to salvation or damnation. Heretics will say all sorts of thing to attack this doctrine such as "John Calvin came up with it, and since it is man made it is not true". They will also claim that the Apostle Paul made it up. The truth of the matter is that God made it up. John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except that the Father which hath sent me draws him.". This is predestination which is taught by the Apostle Paul, and echoed through John Calvin.

Again, many find this hard to swallow and turn their backs on it, leaving Christ and his teachings behind (John 6). These people should read Romans 9:20-21 "But who are you, Oh man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this'?'. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?". Also read Daniel 4:5 "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'". Daniel especially addresses this. The peoples of the earth are worthless. God owes you nothing. He can and does do as he pleases and it is not for us to say, 'that is not fair', or 'this is unjust'. To do so is heresy, this is why predestination should be taught as a fundamental principal of the Christian faith. I will write more in the future on how ignoring such doctrinal truths as set forth in the TULIP lead to bad fruits. Until then I hope I have explained predestination to you all in a way that you can understand and use to glorify God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Christ - Savior of all men

"Christ is the savior of all men, especially those who believe in Him." - 1 Timothy 4:10. I, as usual, have been watching 'youtube preaching' and I have heard this verse come up quite a bit, and I thought that it is high time it is explained. So what does this verse mean? If it means that all men are saved, what is this 'especially those who believe' part about? Is he any more a savior to them? No! This verse is not a statement of causality, but the declaration of a title. Christ the savior of all men is a title being applied here. We also again not confuse that this means all men are saved. Instead this means that he is the only savior; God's unique son, through whom is the only way to the Father. Why then include 'all men'? Because God is not God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles too - Romans 3:29. This verse is not a foundation for the heresy of universalism (the belief that all men are saved and will go to heaven), but instead the condemnation of it! This is reaffirming what Christ said when he spoke of the narrow way and the narrow gate (Matthew 7:14). Christ is not only the mediator for all men, He is the ONLY mediator for all men. Not all religions lead to the Father.

Now you may ask, 'Matthew, why do you say this?' to which I will reply; 'to speak the truth, wholly and un-abashedly to the Glory of God'. Indeed, to use this verse, or any other, to say that all men are saved is contrary to many scriptures. Take for example Matthew 7:21, "Not all who say unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven"; clearly, there will be some, who even confess the Lord with their mouths, that shall not enter heaven, and thus are not saved.

Now you shall surely be confused, you must surely say, 'but Matthew, look at Romans 10:9 (If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you shall be saved)'. I would have to answer you to look closer: "And believe in your heart". There are those who lie, and who falsely 'confess' Jesus to be Lord. How is this possible? The answer is very simple, yet vitally important to understand: Faith is a gift from God, not something which we must obtain, or strive for, or exercise to keep. Faith, as a GIFT, saves because it is by faith that we confess and believe! Faith as a gift from a worthy sacrifice saves us, and does not let us go. This is what the great fathers of the reformation meant when they said 'faith alone'!

Not all are saved. Not all will be saved. It is a ploy of Satan to say 'How could a loving God condemn someone to Hell?' But this is an improper translation. Let me put it aright for you; 'Why would a perfect, holy God bear a single sinner who has rightfully earned his death, to enter into eternal life?' The answer isn't because he feels guilty. The answer isn't because he needs to, or has to. The answer is because he wants to. Why? FOR HIS GLORY!!!!

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

The Gospel vs The Message

Let's first look at Matthew 7:21. In the NIV; "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Now from the Message; "Knowing the correct password - saying 'Master, Master' for instance - isn't going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience - doing what my Father wills." Where does Mr. Peterson get the concept of a 'password'? And what about the kingdom of heaven? Also, note that the in the NIV, we can take the point that not all who say that Christ is Lord are saved. This truth is lost in the Message.

Now for the Lord's Prayer as found in Matthew 6. Read from the NIV it says, "Our Father in heaven hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one." Now to hear from the Message; "Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best - as above so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes." Why does the Message lose 'hallowed by your name'? Also, "set the world right" is kinda ambiguous as to the meaning. It could vary from person to person, however, 'thy will be done' is absolute to the will of God. I'm not going to go into great detail as to the "as above so below". I will say that it is inherintly linked to magic, it is 100% pagan in origin and has nothing to do with submitting to the will of God. Also, when fleeing Egypt, they had manna and quail for quite a while; nowhere near three square meals, so why does Mr. Peterson feel the need to ask for what he does not need? Why does Mr. Peterson see fit to add 'from ourselves'? Also, where did the part "You're in charge...Yes. Yes. Yes." come from? Why does NO other translation contain this? Indeed this breaks significantly in the fact that he is now praising in prayer which is not set forth in the Lord's Prayer, and could indeed classify as "babbling on like the Pagans." Also, God cannot do anything he wants. Period. God cannot destroy the earth by water again because he swore not to and God does not lie. And what is this 'Yes. Yes. Yes' nonsense anyways?

One final passage for this post: Romans 3:29-30. Read in the NIV; "Is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not the God of gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith." Now for the Message; "And where does that leave our proud Jewish claim of having a corner on God? Also canceled. God is the God of outsider non-Jews as well as insider Jews. How could it be otherwise since there is only one God? God sets all who welcome his action and enter into it, both those who follow our religion and those who have never heard of our religion." Ignoring that Mr. Peterson just made faith into a work which we "welcome" and "enter", how does he get off saying that God welcomes those who have never heard of our religion? This sounds as if he is propagating the heresy that there are many ways to the Father. At best this is a poorly phrased reference to the Old Testament and the religion of the Jews, but then who, having not heard the Law, and therefore not suffered the condemnation of the Law, could recieve the gift of Christ? Again the Message has botched a passage.

For these reasons and for many many more, my dear Brothers and Sisters, I urge you to be vigilant against this insidious poison and let it spread no further.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Glory of God is made perfect in weakness

I want to take a second and address a topic which causes people to tense up and turn off; Original Sin. I have been watching many people on youtube speak on the subject and I have found a lack of understanding along with a lack of desire to understand. Original sin is biblical when taken on in the right manner. Consider this "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." -Romans 5:12. This is not contradictory to the word of God in Ezekiel "the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor the father the guilt of the son." -18:20. What Ezekiel is saying is that if my father goes out and kills a man, I will not be punished for the murder. What Romans is saying is that Adam's desire to sin is imparted to every man ever born. It's NOT saying that I will be punished for Adam's rebellion, it's saying that I myself will commit sin for which I will die.

It's that simple. That is the doctrine of original sin, put plainly, in love that all who read might understand. Original sin is right. It is established within the bible, and in more places than these...I do not however wish to go into all of them at this time, but press on and ask, how sinful are we?

Let's look at Genesis 8:21 "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." Genesis says "every inclination", meaning there is no good within them, in their flesh...aka...Romans 7:18. Look also to Micah 7:4 "the best of them is like a briar, the most upright worse than a thorn hedge." Even the best that we have, the most righteous that we can be, even following the laws perfectly, we are worse than thorns.

Now many will probably ask why I say this since it is divisive, not winsome or at face particularly useful for teaching, rebuking...etc etc...the reason is this: 2 Corinthians 12:9 "my power is made perfect in weakness". This glorifies God! This is the reason that man is so totally wicked, that God, seated on high, may be glorified!! "Christ demonstrates his love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Soli Deo Gloria!

Permanence of salvation

I was at Joel Helm's house last night for the first summer bible study 2010, and before it was underway we spoke briefly on my favorite topic, theology. Joel asked me what specifically I saw wrong with the Catholic theology that was 'dangerous' and should not merely be written off as cultural differences. I realized that one of the most outstanding views of the Catholic Church which I would stomp out is the idea that they can lose their salvation. Allow me to explain...

While Bob Gullo and I were doing the roots team, we managed to get two Catholics to answer our questions in a row, one indeed was an acquaintance, and we were able to speak at some length. One of the confessing beliefs of the Navigators ministry (and of MANY others) is that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" Romans 10:9 Now Bob, I call on you to witness to this, at this point she stopped and said, 'well, I kinda believe that'. Being bewildered I asked her to explain. She said that she believed that she could be saved, but had to confess and repent (in the Catholic style specifically) and be sinless. I asked her to explain. She gave me more useless speech and eventually said that she had to go to confession (with a priest in the Catholic style) and be forgiven by the priest. She then explained that if on the way from the cathedral, if she were to stub her toe and swear, then immediately get hit by a bus and die, she would burn in Hell for all eternity. I felt really sad for her at that moment, but now I want to itterate this with less sympathy for the speaker, and more emphasis on the belief behind it.

This idea that she could fall from grace is completely un-biblical. One who is saved by God will not be lost. If you are unsure of this, look in the gospel of John 10:29 "for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father's hand." What the girl did not understand (what she was no taught in a wicked and evil 'church') was that nothing can separate her from God's love. There is nothing she could do to jeopardize her salvation.

Indeed, no one reading this, who is 'held in the Father's hand' can be plucked from it. That is not to say that all reading this are in the Father's hand, but I digress...When I said thus to Joel he responded, "well Matthew you have two ways to change that: become a Catholic priest and attempt to change doctrine within the church or to help those Catholics you meet grow with Jesus." I did not respond then, but I wish to now. Yes, you're right Joel, but I'm not going to use cliches. I'm not going to be hip, popular or even all that nice. They need, let me emphasize NEED to hear this word of God. Sure they'll read the bible and 'grow with Jesus'...I did quite a bit of that for my freshman year...but will the spirit convict them? Will their eyes be opened? By standing and addressing the matter in a straightforward way E.G. "You're wrong" they have no choice but to consider the subject at hand. No, I will not suffer to write that off as a cultural difference. It is a doctrine contrary to the Holy Scriptures and is given to us by a Holy, Righteous and Loving God.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Great Lies

It's been a while since my last post, and I need to be studying, so of course I'm writing a blog post...

So I was cruising youtube watching clips of evangelists trying to discern how evangelism should be done and I found some videos by one Monica Dennington and found myself very distressed. The videos I have watched have been about denying fellowship to Calvinists because they are divisive. That alone should raise some eyebrows. Is the Gospel, when dutifully preached, divisive? What about Christ specifically telling us not to worry when we are rejected because the world first rejected him? Are we called to live in peace with the world? Are we called to agree with the world, and everyone of it? NO! Yet Mrs. Dennington preaches (a separate issue unto itself) a half and half Armenian and Calvinistic view all the while twisting the Holy word of God to support her belief that anyone who vocalizes disagreement should be put out of fellowship. Sound Catholic much? Please, if you have heard her on youtube, give no credence to her. She says to "read your bible and do what it says" as if to say that she is doing so, but all the while she denies exegetical teachings and examining context. (until she reaches the part about a woman not being above a man...queue the 'exegesis' and 'context' then...)

I do wish to now address some of the lies I have heard from her unto themselves. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that who-so-ever believes in him shall have eternal life". Many people use this as some kind of justification that anyone whom confesses a belief in Christ is saved. This is one of the greatest lies in Christendom. All those who believe are saved, however not all those who confess Christ are believers in the sense that this verse puts forward. She exhorts her viewers to not listen to Calvinists because we supposedly place trust in the flesh because we read religious books other than the bible, and because we listen to the teachings of Calvinists. She accuses us of placing faith in flesh and refusing to bow at the feet of Christ! Calvanists have done nothing BUT denounce the flesh and bow to Christ! The biggest lie that she has told is this mindset that Calvinists are dividing the body. She (and many others) think that being divisive is bad. (Ignoring the side rant that the gospel IS divisive.) There is this mentality that a person can divide the body of Christ. This is not so! The body of Christ, the true church and communion of true believers cannot be divided because Christ does not lose any that are given to him. Any who are divided away from the body of Christ never were part of the body. In the same fashion, she can't divide Calvinists from the body of Christ, she can (and by this I mean the Holy Spirit working through her) and only separate herself from the body of Christ.

I leave you now with the exhortation to be wary of false teachers and to cling to God, the rock from which you were cut.

Soli Deo Gloria

My Testimony

Everyone is influenced by someone. Everyone that you meet holds the potential to be the tools of the Lord to change you, but only some are used as such. This blog post is being written to acknowledge the people in my life who have been influential to my growth in Christ. Firstly I wish to acknowledge St. Mark's Lutheran Church; my home congregation, and all the people therein. I also wish to acknowledge the 2009 decision in the ELCA which I have blogged on before. That singular event more than any other made me realize that complacency is the greatest evil a man can have.

The Navigators ministry on campus has also been a huge influence to my growth. When I came to campus JP and Alfred came into my dorm room and invited me to come have pizza and a bible study. Naturally I went for pizza, and having some interest in religion, signed up for a bible study. Alfred and Tyler Bennett led the bible study through John of which I was the only student. Still, Tyler met with me once a week for breakfast and a quiet time, and sporadically throughout the week to talk about religion, patiently listen to my questions (sometimes arguments) and share with me the gospel truth, on top of the weekly bible study. Because of that, I would consider Tyler a huge reason of why I am here today. The Lord used him mightily in my life. During this time I realized my need for God and began to force myself to read the bible more and more. As time progressed I realized my need for obedience and began to force myself to uphold the basic laws and expectations Christians should be living up to. The Navigator ministry as a whole was very good to me in the fact that they believe the bible to be the authoritative word of God. I was want to say that 'the bible is written by man and falliable' and the navigators would not tolerate such. Tyler himself was forced to hear this complaint repeatedly and yet never lost his patience in telling me that I was wrong.

The next major step in my journey was that of Joel Iliff. I met him at a Nav event and my first impression was that he was hopelessly weird. I still hold this view (just kidding Joel)...but what really got me about him was that he believed the bible, not just a 'yeah I guess so', but a whole hearted unapologetic belief that bordered on insanity. He specifically defended the doctrine of predestination which at the time I hated with a passion. Don't bother to tell me any arguments against it, I have spoken them all, I have believed them all. Joel was used by the Holy Spirit to subdue me unto the will of God. Joel knows this, that he could have never swayed my mind, as stubborn as I was, yet the Holy Spirit would not tolerate my disbelief, and thus God changed not only my mind, but my heart. Joel did not have the un-anger-able patience of Tyler, but none-the-less he stated the gospel truthfully and refused to give in to my arguments to the contrary, God be praised! Thus I truly began to want to read my bible, I began to want to please God.

So for a couple months I strove with all my might to be good enough for God. I gave 100% of me to being the perfect image of the Christian, to being a good navigator, to attaining my salvation. Then, on the MLK 2010 retreat with the Navigators, a friend (whom shall remain nameless because I don't have their express consent to write about them) confessed a lack of belief, a lack of trust. It hit me right then that I was so guilty of the same thing. In that moment I truly realized that I was saved, not by my works or belief or obedience but by the saving Grace of God alone by faith alone. Thus I laid my disbelief down at God's feet and swore to dwell on it no more. I then truly felt the Grace of God in my life, and since then, great change has occurred in my life.

Not only that the Spirit has been at work, but that I have been blessed to live with Joel this year who is always willing to talk about deep spiritual matters, and like Tyler tolerate my dumbest questions which reveal my ignorance in patience so that I might be ignorant no longer. Joel, knowing how to translate Greek from the original writings into English on his own has been a great help in understanding how to interpret many passages. In addition to this I have been blessed with Joel and Alek's patience with my impatience. The two of them have been listening to what I say and how I say it and have been careful to point out when I'm not being as loving as I should be. Between Tyler, Joel, Alek, and the Holy Spirit of God, I am now set on fire with a desire for Holiness, for Truth, for Grace. I am Matthew Shealy, and that is my testimony.

The Sword

I have been thinking on the hippie problem of this country for some time now, and not just the political ones. As a very good friend pointed out, tolerance has replaced truth in this post-modern age, as what we hold in value, as what we desire. We now place tolerance in such a position that intolerance is intolerable. Even 'Christians' in today's society are so concerned with tolerance that they cannot function as Christians should. A friend of mine, whom I do love dearly once told me in no uncertain terms that there would be no discussion of theology at the dinner table because it divided people. She approached the entire subject with reproach because of her need for 'tolerance'. She viewed (correctly) theology as divisive and came to the conclusion (incorrectly) that we should avoid it. Instead we should talk about temporal things of this world or offer encouragement and love.

Love...when did we, the Holy Church of God's elect people, allow the world to tell us what love is? When did we change from thirsting after the truth and for all men to know it to not wanting to rock the boat? When did we become so concerned with tolerating other peoples' view points and opinions? WHY?!? Where in the scripture does it say that we should hold our tongues against the teaching of the truth in favor of peace amongst ourselves? What happened to Christ not sending peace on earth but a sword? Are we so deluded with the ways of this world that we will deliberately ignore this teaching? Will we re-interpret it to be more palatable to the world? Why did we boil down the gospel to a few questions, and salvation to no more than asking God into our hearts?

More importantly, why do we tolerate such un-Godliness? Why do we allow people to think that they are right when we know that they are wrong? Why do we allow them to think that they are saved when they are not, why do we let people go on perverting scripture when we know that they abuse it? This is what Christ was preaching about when he said "Those who deny me in this world I will deny before my father". He wasn't just talking about atheists! He was talking about a vast majority of modern American Christians!

Wake up people! It's high time to get a move on! It's time for a revival, a return to God! It's time to conform society to the word, not the word of God to society! Don't go out and hate people in your hearts, but do not tolerate tolerance for the sake of unity and peace any longer!

A Lesson in Love

I don't know why I suddenly feel the need to share this, but I do feel now necessary to relate this story to those few who read my blogs, I guess to show that I do actually have a frail, broken human side in spite of my many blogs on 'deeper' theology.

It was my first semester at USC, fall 2008. It was an overcast day, much as it is right now, and I had just gotten out of my first Chemistry exam here at the University. I had done poorly and was worried about my grade. This was of course back before I stopped caring... Anyway, I was heading toward my next class in the Engineering building, feeling really down in the dump. I wasn't paying attention to anything but my own failings and shortcomings, preferring to look at my feet as I walked to avoid thinking about anything but my foul up. Just then, a hand belonging to someone walking up the hill against me, reached out and touched my shoulder so as to get my attention. Startled out of my reprieve I looked up to see a poorly kept man with a scraggly beard, tattered clothes and the odor of garbage. Immediately I forgot my own problems, and thought 'Damnit! It's another hobo wanting my money'. Far from it, the man, who appeared to be in excellent spirit said "Hey! Don't look so sad, it always turns out okay" and walked away.

That poor hobo who didn't own much of anything in this world, who had to beg to get anything and suffer the contempt of everyone, including myself, was selfless in a way that I am not. He looked past his own situation to see someone else who was in pain, and did what he could to comfort them...to comfort me. And I, who am being sent to college by scholarships and my parents' money, who has been given everything I have ever needed and so many things that I didn't, I judged him, and I found him guilty. I found him guilty and condemned him to suffer my contempt, the hatred and resentment of my heart, and yet he showed me love.

I can say that no great change came over me that day, sure I felt a little gratitude, and was in a little better mood afterward, but no great change came over me. I kept on with my life as always, ungrateful, and uncaring. Am I saying that I am now changed and live only to serve? Hardly. I am still frail and broken human in need of Grace, but I can say that thanks to that poor hobo, I have learned a valuable lesson in how to love my neighbor. It took me two years to realize the profoundness of the situation and fully appreciate it, but now that the tree has grown, I think its time to see some fruit.

You're right Mr. Hobo man, it does turn out alright, and I thank you.

Soli Deo Gloria

New Realizations

Recently, I have been working on how to say what I want to be said, not just saying the thoughts that cross my mind. In the process of doing so I have learned something about myself that I never realized before; I give the appearance of being a very apathetic person. Specifically in the way I say things, and in the way I speak to people. When I say something, I find that it's usually right, but said in the wrong way, as a friend of mine helped me to see. It's not just that you're right, it's that you deliver what you say in an impeccable manner so that none can dispute it.

Also, I have noticed that I often forget about other people's problems. Its not that I don't care about them, it's just that I forget to care. EG - I was eating with said friend at lunch on Friday and a mutual friend came by and spoke. I knew it was his birthday, but said nothing about it since it wasn't germane to the topic at hand. I didn't even realize my feaux paux (which is head-up-my-butt for Foe Pah) until the friend I was eating with wished him a happy birthday as he walked away. It was then that I realized how inconsiderate I can be. This is not even the only time that I have done this recently. This is why it is now my goal to be more conscientious of the people around me.

For Lent, I gave up anger with decent success and now I must move on to bigger and greater goals or risk stagnation. So, for the Easter season, I am going to work on bearing the burdens of my brothers above those of myself. I am going to ask people how they are doing with renewed sincerity and keep their burdens in mind as much as possible. In this I hope that God shall humble me and make me more compassionate to things which I have been ignoring for so long.

The Valley of Dry Bones

The Valley of Dry Bones as told in Ezekiel chapter 37 has always been a great story, and one of my personal favorites, but I wish to speak on it now during Holy Week. Sure, one could read the story very straightforwardly and dry-ly (haha) but when you stop to really consider it, it is amazing. The Lord is leading the prophet Ezekiel through the land, and leads him into a valley full of human bones, bones that have been there so long that they are clean and free from all flesh and skin. The Lord then asks Ezekiel if the dead bones can live. Ezekiel wisely acknowledges his ignorance and says "O Sovereign Lord, you alone know.". The Lord then tells him to prophesy to the dead bones. Stop here and imagine this, Ezekiel who has been preaching against all the people of the land about God's wrath is now commanded to prophesy to a valley of lifeless bones. The Lord tells him to say "Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life...". "Hear the word of the Lord!" spoken into a valley of bones. And whats more, after that profound statement, the bones assemble themselves and are covered with flesh and skin! Ezekiel is then commanded to prophesy that breath enter them and that they live, just as he prophesies, it occurs.

How many of us feel that "Go and make disciples" is too big a chore? That there's no way we could make disciples of every nation? Yet here is a prophet commanding a valley of dead and dry bones to live because the Lord wills it! How much more then can the Lord bring the living to himself? This story always reminds me to speak with authority of knowledge, and not of timidity for my God can do all things. More than that, it almost always brings me to tears to remember that I was dead bones. I was dead bones in an isolated valley before the Lord commanded me to live again and to come to him, and he raised me up! Rejoice now in Holy Week that the Lord has raised up dead bones to life!

"Then He said to me, 'Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!" Ezekiel 37:3

The Greatest Holiday

With Holy Week quickly approaching I see many churches in the area advertising their Easter services in much the same way as they do their Christmas services and pageants. I must say that I find this to be somewhat ridiculous. Who are they trying to attract? Fellow Christians whom have congregations of their own? Unbelievers? Non church going Christians? What significance does Easter have to the unbeliever? Why aren't the non church going Christians bothering to turn out for Easter? And most importantly, why aren't these churches promoting their Good Friday service? Is it not, after all, the most important Holiday that we as Christians observe? It is the remembrance that the Christ was willing to suffer an agonizing death to pay for our sins. He did not just have the discomfort of having nails driven through his arms and feet, not just the exquisite agony of suffocating under his own weight as his body slowly sagged and pushed in on his chest, he suffered the full, THE FULL, wrath of God. Yes, WRATH!! He bore it ALL so that there would be no more for us! It is the giving of grace. It is the giving of salvation!

Why do I say these things? Because we have elevated the resurrection of our Lord above his atoning death. I say this in reprimand to the churches not offering Good Friday services. I say them because of those who don't believe that Christ covered all of their sins on that cross. I write it for those who refuse to believe in the wrath of God. I say them for the joy that my dead bones have been brought to life! I say them in rejoicing that this was ordained to occur to save my soul!

Hypocracy

I was at a campus worship service Wednesday night, with a group of people I enjoy being around and are thankful for, but what happened just got under my skin. One of the leaders of the group got up for the 'sermon' and talked about Jonah and Nineveh. He spoke about the Ninevites and their practices for which they recieved the condemnation of God. Amongst the offenses he told us of was the practice of sacrificing children into a fire to gain the favor of God. At this, the whole room gasped a little and many people looked absolutely revolted. Yet they have been invited numerous times to help with the pro-life movement and few of them have. How dare they feel horrified that in some ancient time people burned their children when they don't give a care to the fact that every day an approximate 4,000 children are murdered in the name of 'choice' and 'a woman's right'. Why do so many of God's people do nothing to please God? They read the bible but they never take a serious stand. These people have no right to be appalled.

One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

I recently read a debate occuring on a friend’s facebook wall. On it, a catholic made a disparaging remark about protestants and more than just rubbing me the wrong way it made me think. He quoted from St. Matthew the verse where Peter confesses that Christ is Lord and Christ tells him that he will be the rock on which he builds his church and that whatever he binds here on earth will be bound in heaven…etc. Right there in red letters was Christ giving over the fate of the church into the hands of one who would later disown him. That irony not withstanding…I began to contemplate if the ‘Holy’ Roman Catholic church was the one true church.

Then it hit me. The guy had found two verses. Two verses in the entire bible that seemed to ordain the church. That was all. Not just that, but those verses can’t possibly be taken any more literally than can the use of the word ‘Jews’ can be in Romans chapter 2. Peter was the rock on which Christ built his church, but it was Christ’s church! It was a body of believers who gave their sins over to Christ and were saved through him. It’s not a physical building or congregation or even a certain structure of organizations that Christ was ordaining then; it was the fellowship of believers; congregations with correct teachings.

This guy found two verses to support catholicism. The reformers (namely Martin Luther [I have a one track mind]) had the entire bible to support them. They had entire systematic theologies. Traditional catholicism can’t hold a flame to the reformation, and they are not the one true church.

The one true Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is not defined in any human manner. It is not contained within any given congregation or denomination. It is comprised of true believers through the ages and bows to no man! Humanism, pride, greed and all the other ills of this world do not ravage the true church nor can any disaster, be it fire or flood ever destroy it. And I pity the people who don’t understand that.