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.
Friday, December 17, 2010
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
Sunday, June 6, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)