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
Monday, July 26, 2010
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
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Docrine of Predestination
I am writing this in order to clarify some of my earlier posts and some of the Calvinistic views of scripture, and to try to explain the doctrine of predestination to a friend. All men are sinful by nature. (see my post "The Glory of God is made perfect in weakness" for details) God damns men to 'the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth' (aka hell) because of their sin. (He is just in doing so because all men have sinned and the wages of sin is death). This does not imply that man is able to do anything but sin, indeed he is unable. (Man is a slave to sin, in it's total control). Then Christ comes to the world (compromised of all men), not just the Jews, and dies so that whoever believes will not die. This does not mean that we can choose to believe, indeed the Father draws us to belief and to the Son (John 6). This is predestination.
The reason most people don't believe in the Calvinistic view of predestination is because they are at heart prideful. They somehow believe that God owes them something, like the choice to go to heaven. They believe that they have 'Free Will' a doctrine I have not yet found within scripture. They take 'free will' from passages such as 'choose you today who you shall serve' (Joshua 24:15) to mean that they can choose God. This is plainly not so. They say, "no just God could punish a man for something he cannot help but to do (speaking about sinning)' but the truth of the matter is that unrepentant man 'chooses' sin because he is by nature (aka by design aka by predestination) sinful. (Romans 7:5 sets forth flesh and the sinful nature to be synonymous). "The sinful mind is hostile to God" -Romans 8:7
Point blank: God does predestine people to salvation or damnation. Heretics will say all sorts of thing to attack this doctrine such as "John Calvin came up with it, and since it is man made it is not true". They will also claim that the Apostle Paul made it up. The truth of the matter is that God made it up. John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except that the Father which hath sent me draws him.". This is predestination which is taught by the Apostle Paul, and echoed through John Calvin.
Again, many find this hard to swallow and turn their backs on it, leaving Christ and his teachings behind (John 6). These people should read Romans 9:20-21 "But who are you, Oh man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this'?'. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?". Also read Daniel 4:5 "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'". Daniel especially addresses this. The peoples of the earth are worthless. God owes you nothing. He can and does do as he pleases and it is not for us to say, 'that is not fair', or 'this is unjust'. To do so is heresy, this is why predestination should be taught as a fundamental principal of the Christian faith. I will write more in the future on how ignoring such doctrinal truths as set forth in the TULIP lead to bad fruits. Until then I hope I have explained predestination to you all in a way that you can understand and use to glorify God.
Soli Deo Gloria
The reason most people don't believe in the Calvinistic view of predestination is because they are at heart prideful. They somehow believe that God owes them something, like the choice to go to heaven. They believe that they have 'Free Will' a doctrine I have not yet found within scripture. They take 'free will' from passages such as 'choose you today who you shall serve' (Joshua 24:15) to mean that they can choose God. This is plainly not so. They say, "no just God could punish a man for something he cannot help but to do (speaking about sinning)' but the truth of the matter is that unrepentant man 'chooses' sin because he is by nature (aka by design aka by predestination) sinful. (Romans 7:5 sets forth flesh and the sinful nature to be synonymous). "The sinful mind is hostile to God" -Romans 8:7
Point blank: God does predestine people to salvation or damnation. Heretics will say all sorts of thing to attack this doctrine such as "John Calvin came up with it, and since it is man made it is not true". They will also claim that the Apostle Paul made it up. The truth of the matter is that God made it up. John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except that the Father which hath sent me draws him.". This is predestination which is taught by the Apostle Paul, and echoed through John Calvin.
Again, many find this hard to swallow and turn their backs on it, leaving Christ and his teachings behind (John 6). These people should read Romans 9:20-21 "But who are you, Oh man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this'?'. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?". Also read Daniel 4:5 "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'". Daniel especially addresses this. The peoples of the earth are worthless. God owes you nothing. He can and does do as he pleases and it is not for us to say, 'that is not fair', or 'this is unjust'. To do so is heresy, this is why predestination should be taught as a fundamental principal of the Christian faith. I will write more in the future on how ignoring such doctrinal truths as set forth in the TULIP lead to bad fruits. Until then I hope I have explained predestination to you all in a way that you can understand and use to glorify God.
Soli Deo Gloria
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Christ - Savior of all men
"Christ is the savior of all men, especially those who believe in Him." - 1 Timothy 4:10. I, as usual, have been watching 'youtube preaching' and I have heard this verse come up quite a bit, and I thought that it is high time it is explained. So what does this verse mean? If it means that all men are saved, what is this 'especially those who believe' part about? Is he any more a savior to them? No! This verse is not a statement of causality, but the declaration of a title. Christ the savior of all men is a title being applied here. We also again not confuse that this means all men are saved. Instead this means that he is the only savior; God's unique son, through whom is the only way to the Father. Why then include 'all men'? Because God is not God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles too - Romans 3:29. This verse is not a foundation for the heresy of universalism (the belief that all men are saved and will go to heaven), but instead the condemnation of it! This is reaffirming what Christ said when he spoke of the narrow way and the narrow gate (Matthew 7:14). Christ is not only the mediator for all men, He is the ONLY mediator for all men. Not all religions lead to the Father.
Now you may ask, 'Matthew, why do you say this?' to which I will reply; 'to speak the truth, wholly and un-abashedly to the Glory of God'. Indeed, to use this verse, or any other, to say that all men are saved is contrary to many scriptures. Take for example Matthew 7:21, "Not all who say unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven"; clearly, there will be some, who even confess the Lord with their mouths, that shall not enter heaven, and thus are not saved.
Now you shall surely be confused, you must surely say, 'but Matthew, look at Romans 10:9 (If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you shall be saved)'. I would have to answer you to look closer: "And believe in your heart". There are those who lie, and who falsely 'confess' Jesus to be Lord. How is this possible? The answer is very simple, yet vitally important to understand: Faith is a gift from God, not something which we must obtain, or strive for, or exercise to keep. Faith, as a GIFT, saves because it is by faith that we confess and believe! Faith as a gift from a worthy sacrifice saves us, and does not let us go. This is what the great fathers of the reformation meant when they said 'faith alone'!
Not all are saved. Not all will be saved. It is a ploy of Satan to say 'How could a loving God condemn someone to Hell?' But this is an improper translation. Let me put it aright for you; 'Why would a perfect, holy God bear a single sinner who has rightfully earned his death, to enter into eternal life?' The answer isn't because he feels guilty. The answer isn't because he needs to, or has to. The answer is because he wants to. Why? FOR HIS GLORY!!!!
SOLI DEO GLORIA!
Now you may ask, 'Matthew, why do you say this?' to which I will reply; 'to speak the truth, wholly and un-abashedly to the Glory of God'. Indeed, to use this verse, or any other, to say that all men are saved is contrary to many scriptures. Take for example Matthew 7:21, "Not all who say unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven"; clearly, there will be some, who even confess the Lord with their mouths, that shall not enter heaven, and thus are not saved.
Now you shall surely be confused, you must surely say, 'but Matthew, look at Romans 10:9 (If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you shall be saved)'. I would have to answer you to look closer: "And believe in your heart". There are those who lie, and who falsely 'confess' Jesus to be Lord. How is this possible? The answer is very simple, yet vitally important to understand: Faith is a gift from God, not something which we must obtain, or strive for, or exercise to keep. Faith, as a GIFT, saves because it is by faith that we confess and believe! Faith as a gift from a worthy sacrifice saves us, and does not let us go. This is what the great fathers of the reformation meant when they said 'faith alone'!
Not all are saved. Not all will be saved. It is a ploy of Satan to say 'How could a loving God condemn someone to Hell?' But this is an improper translation. Let me put it aright for you; 'Why would a perfect, holy God bear a single sinner who has rightfully earned his death, to enter into eternal life?' The answer isn't because he feels guilty. The answer isn't because he needs to, or has to. The answer is because he wants to. Why? FOR HIS GLORY!!!!
SOLI DEO GLORIA!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Gospel vs The Message
Let's first look at Matthew 7:21. In the NIV; "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Now from the Message; "Knowing the correct password - saying 'Master, Master' for instance - isn't going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience - doing what my Father wills." Where does Mr. Peterson get the concept of a 'password'? And what about the kingdom of heaven? Also, note that the in the NIV, we can take the point that not all who say that Christ is Lord are saved. This truth is lost in the Message.
Now for the Lord's Prayer as found in Matthew 6. Read from the NIV it says, "Our Father in heaven hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one." Now to hear from the Message; "Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best - as above so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes." Why does the Message lose 'hallowed by your name'? Also, "set the world right" is kinda ambiguous as to the meaning. It could vary from person to person, however, 'thy will be done' is absolute to the will of God. I'm not going to go into great detail as to the "as above so below". I will say that it is inherintly linked to magic, it is 100% pagan in origin and has nothing to do with submitting to the will of God. Also, when fleeing Egypt, they had manna and quail for quite a while; nowhere near three square meals, so why does Mr. Peterson feel the need to ask for what he does not need? Why does Mr. Peterson see fit to add 'from ourselves'? Also, where did the part "You're in charge...Yes. Yes. Yes." come from? Why does NO other translation contain this? Indeed this breaks significantly in the fact that he is now praising in prayer which is not set forth in the Lord's Prayer, and could indeed classify as "babbling on like the Pagans." Also, God cannot do anything he wants. Period. God cannot destroy the earth by water again because he swore not to and God does not lie. And what is this 'Yes. Yes. Yes' nonsense anyways?
One final passage for this post: Romans 3:29-30. Read in the NIV; "Is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not the God of gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith." Now for the Message; "And where does that leave our proud Jewish claim of having a corner on God? Also canceled. God is the God of outsider non-Jews as well as insider Jews. How could it be otherwise since there is only one God? God sets all who welcome his action and enter into it, both those who follow our religion and those who have never heard of our religion." Ignoring that Mr. Peterson just made faith into a work which we "welcome" and "enter", how does he get off saying that God welcomes those who have never heard of our religion? This sounds as if he is propagating the heresy that there are many ways to the Father. At best this is a poorly phrased reference to the Old Testament and the religion of the Jews, but then who, having not heard the Law, and therefore not suffered the condemnation of the Law, could recieve the gift of Christ? Again the Message has botched a passage.
For these reasons and for many many more, my dear Brothers and Sisters, I urge you to be vigilant against this insidious poison and let it spread no further.
Soli Deo Gloria
Now for the Lord's Prayer as found in Matthew 6. Read from the NIV it says, "Our Father in heaven hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one." Now to hear from the Message; "Our Father in heaven, reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best - as above so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes." Why does the Message lose 'hallowed by your name'? Also, "set the world right" is kinda ambiguous as to the meaning. It could vary from person to person, however, 'thy will be done' is absolute to the will of God. I'm not going to go into great detail as to the "as above so below". I will say that it is inherintly linked to magic, it is 100% pagan in origin and has nothing to do with submitting to the will of God. Also, when fleeing Egypt, they had manna and quail for quite a while; nowhere near three square meals, so why does Mr. Peterson feel the need to ask for what he does not need? Why does Mr. Peterson see fit to add 'from ourselves'? Also, where did the part "You're in charge...Yes. Yes. Yes." come from? Why does NO other translation contain this? Indeed this breaks significantly in the fact that he is now praising in prayer which is not set forth in the Lord's Prayer, and could indeed classify as "babbling on like the Pagans." Also, God cannot do anything he wants. Period. God cannot destroy the earth by water again because he swore not to and God does not lie. And what is this 'Yes. Yes. Yes' nonsense anyways?
One final passage for this post: Romans 3:29-30. Read in the NIV; "Is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not the God of gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith." Now for the Message; "And where does that leave our proud Jewish claim of having a corner on God? Also canceled. God is the God of outsider non-Jews as well as insider Jews. How could it be otherwise since there is only one God? God sets all who welcome his action and enter into it, both those who follow our religion and those who have never heard of our religion." Ignoring that Mr. Peterson just made faith into a work which we "welcome" and "enter", how does he get off saying that God welcomes those who have never heard of our religion? This sounds as if he is propagating the heresy that there are many ways to the Father. At best this is a poorly phrased reference to the Old Testament and the religion of the Jews, but then who, having not heard the Law, and therefore not suffered the condemnation of the Law, could recieve the gift of Christ? Again the Message has botched a passage.
For these reasons and for many many more, my dear Brothers and Sisters, I urge you to be vigilant against this insidious poison and let it spread no further.
Soli Deo Gloria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)