So it's been a while since my last post, my bad again! But now onto the next of the "Catholics come home" topics: Papal infallibility and Papal succession. I shall start with the latter by immediately examining the favorite Catholic proof text without context: Matthew 16:18. One can hardly blame Catholics for heading to this verse. The Bishop in Rome needed some sort of sway to convince the other bishops that he was above them. The claim that popes descended from Peter came to aid the bishops of Rome especially around the time of Constantinople which was around the time that men calling themselves 'popes' actually appeared. (I find this quite ironic in more respect than one upon seeing Matthew 23:9 "call no man father, but more on that later). Matthew 16:18 depicts Peter confessing Christ to be the Messiah and Christ rewarding him with his very on church, right?! No. We are talking about the man who denied Christ, three times no less, was called Satan and a stumbling block by Christ himself and was rebuked by Paul. The only way to view this verse in any sane sense is to realize that in Greek πετρος mean a little pebble, a small rock (think back now to his confession of the Christ aka faith) and that πετρα signifies a massive rock formation like a foundation. What Christ is conveying here is that the church is going to be built on faith such as Peter showed, not that Peter gets to be earthly ruler. Indeed, Peter never saw himself as a pope, as above any other Christian, indeed I must say I believe he would have found the thought abhorrent.
Now, lets for the sake of argument say that I am completely wrong and Christ set up an earthly ruler over the church (in clear violation to Matthew 23:9 which will still be discussed later on). And that, for the sake of argument he decided not to tell Peter that he was a pope and was to be privileged to such things as speaking infallibly ex cathedra etc etc...Christ certainly provided no means for succession! How cruel, to leave the church a head for a mere generation more! Oh, wait, we have 2 Timothy 2:2 except that it uses men plural, in accordance with all believers being a royal priesthood (ironically from 1 Peter 2:9) again making the case that there is not supposed to be any mortal man over the church (except the ascended Christ in heaven). Indeed, look at the way succession was decided (decades upon decades after Peter's death); succession went to the bishop of Rome because Peter was martyred there (a disputed fact btw). Look at what this set up! God supposedly set up the leader of the church to always be Roman in spite of him not being a respecter of persons! Indeed only Romans were Popes for a long time until shifting secular power moved the papacy to Avignon, ultimately leading to there being 3 popes at the same time, all claiming to be the one true pope! (That's some seriously legit succession right there, being the divine will of God for there to be a man to lead the church to save it from spiritual confusion and conflict!!!)
But enough Catholic bashing and on to the heart of the matter. Catholics say that succession is a Christo-centric doctrine, but nothing could be further from the truth! Look now at Matthew 23:8 if you haven't already and read. Obviously Christ here isn't banning calling people 'father' or saying that we have no fathers, because biologically speaking we do. What he is saying is that we are not to be led by men. He very clearly states that we are not to either be like the pharisees living in richness and flattering ourselves as 'holier than thou' nor to follow such men. Yet look at the papacy, full of men doing the very things the pharisees did, and Catholics following them along. The Christo-centric doctrine is that the bible is all sufficient for Christian life and that men are nothing more than aids in understanding, racing partners (1 Corinthians 9:24) and brothers, not fathers, teachers and certainly not popes.
Having just used much space to persuade the reader that there is rightly no such one as a pope, I do feel it somewhat redundant and wholly needless to show that these 'popes' are not in fact infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but for those who still give credence to the papacy, I shall continue my work. I shall define ex cathedra as, to the best of my knowledge, when a Pope speaks seeking to bind the church body in belief with his statement, in regards to faith or morals, or when he speaks decisively about faith or morals without formally saying that he wishes the church to believe in it.
As to the fallibility of popes I shall only speak briefly since the standard Catholic response is "Well that wasn't Ex Cathedra". For my first example, let's look back to Pope Honorius, undeniably a supporter of the Monothelites (saying that Christ was only God and not man at all). Pope Honorius was condemned / anathematized / excommunicated at III Constantinople in his official capacity as a pope, not an individual scholar therefore demonstrating that the council (which many believe also enjoys infallibility when speaking as a whole) understood Pope Honorius to have been speaking ex cathedra and thus infallibly.
The only other example I shall give of papal fallibility is as follows. Vatican I declares "That if anyone says that the roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (a brief aside: what of the Avignon popes? They were not roman pontiffs yet the entire church declared them to be popes! Is the whole church during these times anathema? Also, let's not forget that Christ called 'blessed' Peter a stumbling block and Satan...'not the successor of the stumbling block Satan...' not quite the same ring eh?) In brief regards I imagine that there will be uproar for my saying that the Avignon popes weren't popes at all since they weren't roman by people claiming that being Pope makes you the Bishop of Rome, but history argues vice verca. Go back to a basic History class and you will see that only a Roman could be Bishop of Rome and that being Bishop of Rome is what made you a pope up until the Avignon disaster. But now back to the fallibility of Dogmas...Vatican I said that all who did not accept the succession from Peter (such as myself) are damned, yet hear what Vatican II says: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter...They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ." Look now at what this says...I am at once damned and united with Christ! This is clearly a contradiction and disproves papal infallibility. Really this shouldn't be a big deal since we're not to look up to any man as a teacher, but to Christ himself. Again the Catholic Church has set itself up to be something far greater than it should be and has fallen miserably short of the mark. In God alone, and his inspired words are there no contradictions. In him alone is there forgiveness of sins, and to him alone be the glory!
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Matthew Shealy
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
'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.
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.
Monday, November 29, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
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
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
Monday, July 26, 2010
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
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
Monday, June 28, 2010
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
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
Saturday, June 12, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)