2008 March archive at Zeal For Truth

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Archive for March, 2008

Ladies, Always a Bridesmaid, Never a Bride?

Published by Thainamu March 31, 2008 in General, Book Reviews and Christian Books. 37 Comments

Always a bridesmaid??

In her book Get Married: What Women Can Do To Help It Happen, Candice Watters speaks to single Christian women who are past college age, want to be married, but aren’t. (I expect that hardly anyone reading this review fits in that category, so you may want to quit reading here and go check ESPN.com for the latest basketball scores instead.)

In her discussion of what Christian marriage today is like she makes these observations:

Most Christians are meant to marry (that is, God’s call to a life of celibacy is rare).
God is the one who invented marriage, not some frustrated young woman in a church singles’ group.
Marriage is not just the private business of the couple, it involves the entire community.

She urges single women to examine their attitudes:

Men might be jerks, but remember you’re fallen, too.
Don’t assume marriage is not worth the trouble because your parents divorced.
Don’t be embarrassed because you want to marry, and don’t hesitate to publicly say that you want to marry (that is, don’t give in to the common pressure to act like you’re perfectly happy single, if you really aren’t, and avoid the idea that mentioning marriage will scare a guy off.)
Don’t overdo the independence.
Don’t let a past broken heart stop you from trying again.

To the single woman who wants to marry, Watters sprinkles these bits of practical advice throughout her book:

Live a godly life, devoted to loving and obeying God.
Stay out of debt.
Watch your attitude about men so it doesn’t become too critical.
Openly express your beliefs about marriage.
Be a good steward of everything you own—your body, time, money, attitude.
Stay far away from premarital sex—it isn’t going to help you marry well.
Don’t procrastinate, assuming that it is as good to marry at 32 as it would be at 22.
Don’t aim so high—not every one marries their “soul mate.”
Develop a multi-generational network of people who may be able to introduce you to potential gentlemen.
Include your parents in your network, and ask them to pray with you about finding a husband.
There may come a point in a relationship when you have to force the issue—don’t let a guy hang around too long without stating his intentions.
Don’t stay in a going-nowhere relationship, even if it means being alone for a while.
Pray boldly. Don’t pray like you’re apologizing for wanting the good thing God created.

When you find a guy you might be interested in, treat him this way:

Ask him about the dreams he has for his life.
If you honestly can, communicate to him that you believe in him.
Don’t expect 100% maturity in a 25 year old man. Instead, look for aptitude and an attitude that is willing to grow in maturity.
Instead of asking, “Is he worth the risk?” ask, “Will we be able to serve God better together or apart?”

Picky, Picky

Probably the part of this book that I found most interesting was Watters’s discussion of “soul mates.” She points out that today’s young woman is often admired as someone who is highly educated, has a high paying job, drives a safe car, and lives in a safe place. As such, she doesn’t need a man in the way a woman of yesteryear needed one—she doesn’t need protection, she doesn’t need provision, she doesn’t need status. Really, all the independent Christian woman really needs is a best friend to meet her deep emotional longings. (Oh, and she needs sex, too.) And so, she looks for a hott man to marry who could meet all her emotional needs, who knows those needs without her having to tell him, and who makes her feel good. Because she can take care of all her other needs herself, she’s looking to find a husband whose main purpose is an emotional one—and I say, good luck with that! If you get a chance to read only part of the book, I’d say the 6-page subsection of chapter 8, “Aiming Too High,” is probably the best part of the book.

Weekly Links: Only a Few

Published by Colin March 28, 2008 in Current Events. 0 Comments

Since we did not have very many links this week, I thought it would be good to also point out some of the discussions going on in the zft forums:

Good English With Minimal Interpretation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV

A discussion on morality and religion - are the two mutually dependent?

Other Links
Micheal Sandel on the political question of our time

Greek New Testament Manuscripts Discovered in Albania

The Mistaken Battle for President Reagan’s Conservative Legacy

Published by Jasen Tracy March 27, 2008 in Politics. 39 Comments

During the current presidential primary season, Ronald Reagan was a hot issue. His name was used interchangeably with “true conservative.” The Republicans battled each other to claim the mantle of being Reagan’s ideological successor. Meanwhile the Democrats, Clinton and Obama, each tried to label the other as more “Reganite.” By this, they meant “actually conservative,” which of course is a bad thing to be seen as in a Democratic primary.

Reagan did talk a good conservative game:

get government out of the way of the people
the government that governs the least, governs the best
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’

However, his record often failed to live up to that promise.

Social Record
Reagan, especially in the Republican primaries, campaigned as a strong anti-abortion candidate. There is even a good deal of evidence to suggest that Reagan himself was personally against abortions. However, once in power he did very little to restrict abortions. He was fond of addressing the national pro-life rally by phone, so that he wouldn’t be seen on T.V. news with anti-abortion leaders.

Conservatives probably should not have expected much; as governor of California in 1967 (before Roe v Wade) he signed one of the then most liberal laws on abortion, under which over one million abortions would be performed.

Reagan’s record on appointing judges was a bit better for conservatives. He did appoint the conservative judge Scalia, and at least didn’t appoint an outright liberal like H.W. Bush did with Souter. Reagan also appointed moderates Kennedy and O’ Conner, who combined to prevent any of the changes to abortion laws that conservatives wanted until O’Conner’s retirement.

On immigration, an issue today that divided certain pro-business conservatives from other conservatives, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. During the Republican primaries, “amnesty” was a word candidates did not want applied to their plans.

Financial Record
Given the quotes mentioned previously, one would expect a Reagan presidency to create a smaller government. He ran on that platform. He didn’t accomplish it. He really didn’t even try. He campaigned on a promise to eliminate two cabinet departments; he cut none and added one. After a promise to cut back social security, he greatly expanded it, increasing pay roll taxes on both businesses and employees, adding federal workers to the program, and for the first time taxing social security benefits. Spending on welfare increased as well. In fact, social spending increased faster than the famed military spending increase of the Reagan years.

He did cut taxes, but he also raised them. In 1982, he signed the largest percentage tax increase since World War 2. In 1983, he agreed to increase the tax on gas. In 1984, he agreed to toughing laws on businesses, resulting in higher taxes. He did not instigate all of these of course, but he signed them.

In 1986, the tax reformed act saw the biggest increase in taxes on businesses ever. Even some of his tax decreases were done in a liberal fashion. The earned income credit allowed some of the poorest Americans to go without paying income taxes. This is against the conservative tenant that better off Americans shouldn’t have to pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than others.

The most dramatic of Reagan’s financial legacies however, is the increase in the federal debt during his years. Before Reagan’s presidency, the federal debt stood at $789 billion. Afterwards, it stood at $2.191 trillion. That’s an increase of 1.402 trillion dollars in 8 years. Unless the old saw that liberalism means “tax and spend” and conservatism means “borrow and spend,” running up the debt is not conservatism.

Conservatives like to blame Congress, which was under control of the Democrats, for the increase in the deficit. Despite the fact that Reagan often got his way in Congress, with Blue-Dog Democrats like Phil Graham backing him, let’s look at that idea. Figures are taken from the Congressional Almanac.

In Reagan’s eight years, he proposed budgets totaling $7.314 trillion. Congress passed (and Reagan signed) budgets totaling $7.361 trillion. That means Congress spent $47 billion, or 0.6% more than Reagan requested. Since the increase of the deficit during this time was $1.402 trillion, that $47 billion accounts for only 3.4% of the deficit during the Reagan years. Thus, even if Reagan had gotten exactly what he wanted, 96.6% of the debt would still have occurred. Blaming Congress then doesn’t make much sense. Reagan was not a paragon of conservative values.

But He Won The Cold War!
The idea that Reagan won the Cold War is a common one, and one that conservatives love to spread. The idea is that he played tough, increased military spending, and as a result, the Soviet Union fall apart trying to keep up. Sometimes the incredible debt ran up during the Reagan years is forgiven because of this idea.

Let’s examine this idea. Conservatives claim that Communism is an inherently flawed system and that it is doomed to failure. It would then seem that they could not claim too much credit for winning the Cold War for any one person, when Communism was due to fail anyway.

The most that could be claimed is that Reagan hastened the fall of the Soviet Union by a few years. Did he? Well it’s hard claim to disprove, but it’s also impossible to prove. Reagan did oversee increased defensive spending, took a hard line with Moscow, and turned up the rhetoric with remarks like “Evil Empire.”

Did this cause the Soviets to increase spending and thus fall apart sooner? Probably not. The Soviets were already spending all they could in a failed war in Afghanistan. The Soviet economy was in bad shape from years of central planning. This reached a crisis in the 1980’s when Saudi Arabia cranked up its oil exports; this badly damaged the Soviet Union’s ability to raise much needed hard money.

It seems the Soviet Union was already on its last legs financially. Leaders such as Gorbachev were aware of this and were attempting to reform. It’s thought by many that Reagan’s harsh rhetoric made it harder for the reform faction to press forward, as it gave the hardliners evidence that the United states was truly hostile. This increased the threat of misunderstanding and nuclear war, a high price to pay for perhaps hastening the decline of the Soviet Union a couple of years.

Probably the best thing Reagan did in this area was the nuclear limitation agreements with Gorbachev. Done against his the whishes of his conservative advisers, it may have given Gorbachev just enough credibility in Russia to oversee a largely peaceful transition out of the Soviet system.

Conclusion
Reagan’s conservative legacy is greatly overrated. The right has pressed him forward as a great conservative hero in order to use his legacy for their own purposes, and have thus glossed over his many deviations from conservative positions.

The KJV is bad

Published by Kenneth Martens March 26, 2008 in Religion. 87 Comments

Matthew 6:9:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

The modern church should look forward to the day when the preceding words are never spoken. Not because Christians should discard Scripture–we should hold it dear–but because it’s time to move beyond the King James Version.

There are many reasons why the KJV is still used by English-speaking Christians today. Some people use it out of tradition. Others believe it is more faithful to the original text than other translations. Still others believe the King James Version is specifically inspired by God, and is as perfect as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

I do not buy the line that the inerrant word of God is found only in the originals– which nobody has. I know that God has the power to preserve His word and that he wouldn’t leave us out in the dark with an “imperfect” translation. In the authorized King James Version God assembled, and moved with His Spirit, a team of some of the world’s best scholars to translate His word into the world’s most popular language, English.

Why I Read the Authorized King James Version

I’m not going to get sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not God has specially guided the translation of the KJV. It’s an irrelevant point. Even if the KJV is a perfect translation, we shouldn’t read it because you and I don’t speak the language of the KJV. I concede that the KJV is a great translation into 17th century English. It’s a dismal, sorry excuse for a translation into 21st century English. If you speak 21st century English (and you do) why would you read a foreign language translation?

If you don’t think 17th century English is a foreign language, just take a look at the vocabulary. A lot of the words are different. The English used in the KJV differs from modern English in at least five major ways.

1. Use of “thee” and “thou” pronouns (and “ye”, “thine”, etc.)
2. Use of “-est” and “-eth” endings on verbs
3. Use of archaic words that have lost meaning
4. Use of archaic words that have changed meaning
5. Use of archaic idioms and Phrases

The KJV’s Archaic Language Pros and Cons

You might be tempted to think that even if the KJV language is archaic, it’s worth it to learn the archaisms in order to have access to a superior translation. That sort of thinking is rejected by the KJV translators themselves, who saw great value in having a translation in the vulgar (common) language.

“Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isa 29:11]”

The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?

If you grew up in the church, you might be familiar enough with the KJV that it doesn’t seem archaic and confusing to you. But consider how it would appear to someone who hasn’t grown up in the church. It is completely inaccessible. It is about as understandable to them as the Gullah translation is to you.

We Fada wa dey een heaben,
leh ebrybody hona ya name.
We pray dat soon ya gwine
rule oba de wol.
Wasoneba ting ya wahn,
leh um be so een dis wol
same like dey een heaben.
Gii we de food wa we need
dis day yah an ebry day.
Fagib we fa we sin,
same like we da fagib dem people
wa do bad ta we.
Leh we dohn hab haad test
wen Satan try we.
Keep we fom ebil.

It’s time to put the KJV to rest. Today’s English-speaking Christians should use a Bible in their own language.

Biblical Bodily Healing VIII: Faith for Healing

Published by Chris A March 25, 2008 in Religion. 2 Comments

In our previous article on faith, we established that faith is the result of having obtained the knowledge of God through God’s word. Rather than simple mental agreement with Bible doctrines, real living faith is expressed by words and deeds. If there is no corresponding action to the convictions produced by knowledge of God’s word, such convictions are null and void. In this article, we will explore how faith for healing is demonstrated according to the biblical examples set forth in the scriptures. If our actions do not resemble those who received healing through faith, we cannot be sure that we possess faith sufficient to receive healing from Jesus.

A Word of Caution
Many presume that any teaching about faith in relationship to healing will conclude that those who do not receive healing lack faith. This is often offensive to those who have known faithful Christians who died sick. In their mind, to say that a lack of faith on the part of the deceased was responsible for their death is an insult. I have found that a lack of faith is often responsible for the failure of many to receive bodily healing. However, to say that someone died because of a lack of faith really oversimplifies the issue. If the person did not have sufficient knowledge of God’s word on the subject of healing, it would have impossible for them to receive healing through faith. Christian faith is not the badge of honor for the faithful believer so much as it is his assurance of God’s own faithfulness. Therefore, the reader is encouraged not to reckon a possible lack of faith on the part of a Christian as something derogatory.

The Ministry of Jesus
In order to get a clearer picture of how people received healing during Jesus’ earthly ministry, we should find out what they believed about Jesus.

16And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Those who received healing by faith during Jesus’ earthly ministry believed that he was enabled by the Spirit of God to perform miracles. Jesus himself taught and preached this, and word spread abroad quickly about his mighty works.

27And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us. 28And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. 29Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you (Matthew 9:27-29).

Notice that before Jesus healed these men he asked whether they believed he was able to do so. Upon the confession of their faith that he was able to heal them, Jesus said they received healing according to their faith. The faith of these men is demonstrated not only in their confession of faith, but is also evident by how they approached Jesus for healing.

Not only was it necessary for people to believe that Jesus was able to heal, they had to be convinced that he would heal them. Even many of the Pharisees believed that Jesus worked legitimate miracles, but their acknowledgment of this fact did not constitute faith for healing.

2And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 3And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed (Matthew 8:2, 3).

This leper knew Jesus was able to heal, but until Jesus convinced him that he would heal him, his faith was incomplete. Upon hearing Jesus’ statement that he would heal him, a conviction sufficient enough for him to be made whole was established.

Faith or Presumption?
Many Christians think it is presumptive of people to approach God believing that he will heal. This is why so many Christians add “if it be thy will” when praying for healing. This is doubt and not faith. Those who pray this way are not fully persuaded that upon approaching God for healing that it will be granted. Let us examine how this attitude contrasts with that of the woman with the issue of blood.

25And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. 28For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague (Mark 5:25-28).

Notice this woman said, “If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.” Was this a confession of faith or presumption? The answer is found in verse 34 when Jesus said, “Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.”

This is the kind of faith that gets results. She knew before touching Jesus’ clothes that doing so would result in healing. There is no indication that she second-guessed the Lord’s will in the matter.

Believing Precedes Receiving
Biblical faith always believes before it receives. This is contrary to human logic which believes only after seeing. Even “believers” often ask such questions as, “If God guarantees healing, why are not all presently healed?” Questions like these reveal a lack of understanding of the basics of faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Although most of us are trained to look for observable, empirical evidence in determining what is true, faith is the “evidence of things not seen.” We must first believe and hope for (expect) the promises of God to materialize before we physically experience them. That is the pattern of faith set forth from Abraham, who through faith and patience received his promise (Hebrews 6:12, 15).

The Prayer of Faith
Contrary to what many assume, there is very little scripture in the Bible about prayer for healing. Jesus never prayed for the sick, and there is no indication that the disciples ever did either. However, this does not mean prayer for the sick is not biblical. The only specific scripture we have for prayer for the sick is found in James 5.

14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

There are a couple of things I would like to point out from this passage. First, those who are sick are instructed to call for the elders of the church; this is an act of faith on the part of the sick. I do not make this point to suggest that prayer should not be offered for those who do not request it, but merely to point out what the text actually says. Secondly, notice the definiteness of what is expected to happen when prayer is offered – “The prayer of faith shall save (or heal) the sick” and “the Lord shall (not might if it is his will) raise him up.” This approach is in perfect agreement with the attitude of the woman with the issue of blood, who said, “I shall be whole.”

Jesus’ Teaching on Faith and Prayer
Although there was no teaching in the scriptures about prayer for the sick, Jesus laid down some guidelines about faith and prayer that are consistent with what James taught.

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them (Mark 11:24).

According to Jesus, when should one believe he receives what he has asked for? When he sees it? No, when he prays. When prayer is offered the one praying should believe that his request has been granted. Jesus said that the one who prays this way would (not might) get what he prays for. This, of course, suggests that prayer is being offered according to what is clearly the will of God. Prayers for salvation and healing would qualify.

Didn’t Jesus Pray ‘If it be thy will’?
Yes, Jesus did use the phrase “If it be thy will” in prayer. But in what context? Prayer for the sick? No. Jesus only prayed this prayer in order to consecrate himself the will of the Father before he was to be crucified (Matthew 26:41). There may be times Christians may need to pray in a similar fashion, but never when approaching God to receive something he has already expressed a willingness to provide. That would be like asking the Lord, “Lord, if it be thy will, I would like to go to heaven when I die.

Red Light Cameras: Big Brother’s Backfire

Published by Colin March 24, 2008 in Essays and Current Events. 40 Comments

I am the first to admit that people probably don’t like my driving. Cruising a little slow through the neighborhood while trying to read the directions you wrote down? The guy behind you honking is me. Pulling up to a four-way stop, and a blue beetle rolls through without coming to a full stop? I admit it’s me - I didn’t want to wait for you all to figure out who is going to let the others through. Being passed on the interstate at 10mph to 15mph above the speed limit? Me again.

I’ve been pulled over fourteen times in my nine years of driving - and my severely limited view of government isn’t exactly police-friendly either. But let me assure you it isn’t out of bitterness or anarchism that I tell you that the police are not interested in keeping you safe. They have a monopoly on law enforcement and they want to keep it. Thought it sounds redundant - they exist merely to perpetuate their own existence.

In Dallas, Texas they are removing red-light cameras because they work too well.

Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.

In other words: for once, something the police are doing is actually making a measurable difference in safe driving. Read: the police are accidentally doing their job. The article again:

…the twin benefits that were touted when local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago… would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of dollars in extra fines.

The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.

I think this can’t be stated enough times - the police are removing the cameras, despite the fact that it is safer, specifically because revenue is going down. They aren’t doing it in favor of a safer method - they are doing it because the safer driving is causing them to write less tickets.

If you ever wondered why there are so many laws against so many things from drug-use to selling flowers without a license - it’s not to make society moral or orderly - it’s to make you into a criminal, on purpose. If you are a criminal it justifies government programs to punish you and rehabilitate you. It requires government agents to protect others from you. It justifies government interventions such as monopoly services, taxes and violations of civil and economic rights. As was eloquently put in V for Vendetta, the government wants “everyone to remember why they need us!”

Weekly Links: The Gospel, War and Family

Published by Colin March 21, 2008 in General. 2 Comments

Church and State
Trevin Wax at Kingdom People talks about the pros and cons of some newer gospel presentations that go beyond the penal substitution theory of atonement.

When I evaluate a gospel presentation, I try to imagine what kind of disciple the presentation will produce. The gospel presentations of past generations have given us individualistic Christians without an understanding of the missio Dei and the nature of the church. They need to be fixed… But I hope we don’t trade the inadequate presentations from the past with other inadequate presentations.

Some perspective on the Iraq War

A candidate for Idaho Senator legally changes name to Pro-Life

There’s not enough people running red-lights (commentary on this to follow on Monday)

Faith of our Fathers: “The Founding Faith [of America] was not Christianity, and it was not secularism. It was religious liberty - a revolutionary formula for promoting faith by leaving it alone.”

Gender and Family
NY Times article about bad baby names: does a name really make a difference?Are stay at home mom’s to blame for the downturn in eating out?

Career Mom vs. Stay at Home Mom, Are there really any winners?

Canadian Military recruiting Stay at Home Moms

The Stay At Home Dad as Rolemodel, should men be held to the same standards?

Bibilical Bodily Healing VII: Faith Defined

Published by Chris A March 20, 2008 in Religion. 9 Comments

Since Jesus made so much mention of faith with respect to healing, it is necessary that we gain an understanding about what faith is according to the scriptures. Faith is a firm belief or persuasion about God supported by words and/or deeds. Faith results from having obtained the knowledge of God. Absent knowledge, faith cannot be present. This is not knowledge in a purely academic sense, but is knowledge that comes from God via his word. Through God’s word his character and faithfulness is revealed, and thus his credibility is revealed; this is the basis of faith.

Faith is the counterpart of grace. In order for there to be faith, there must be grace. Access into the grace of God is granted by the exercise of faith, and grace is multiplied to us through the knowledge of God.

How Faith is Made Available
The tenth chapter of Romans gives us a picture of what some have termed “saving faith”. This faith is based on the knowledge of God’s will to make righteous all those who receive Christ by faith.

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

In verse 8 Paul calls the Gospel the word of faith. Why? Because it is able to produce faith sufficient for righteousness. However, notice that for this faith to be effective there must be a corresponding confession of faith.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The answer to Paul’s rhetorical questions is: they cannot. It is impossible to call upon a Savior that you have not believed in, and it is impossible something you have not heard.

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The Promises of God
Not only does “saving faith” come by hearing, but all faith comes by hearing. Such was the case with Abraham. He received a promise from God, and on the basis of that promise alone, he believed what seemed to be both impossible and ridiculous to most people. Imagine calling yourself Abraham, which means “father of many nations”, when you are an old man with an old wife who has never bore any children. In Abraham, so many of the qualities of true faith are revealed.

16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform (Romans 4:16-21).

One of the most overlooked qualities of faith is found in verse 19. Notice that it says Abraham “considered not his own body…neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb.” True faith is willing to accept God’s word above all that is seen in the temporal realm. In the Christian sense, seeing is not believing.

For most Christians this is not the case. Adverse circumstances that contradict the promises of God are often touted as “reality”, and thus they stagger at the promise of God because of their failure to esteem God’s word above all else. If you are fully persuaded that God promised you something, nothing else should matter; it should be settled in your mind that he is faithful to keep his promise, and it has to come to pass – period.

Take a look at what Peter said concerning the promises of God in 2 Peter 1:3, 4.

3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

Everything that pertains to life and godliness has been provided (past tense) to Christians through Christ, but in order to partake of that provision Christians must take an active stance towards acquiring what is promised by faith. There is indeed nothing passive about faith. Those who are in faith think, speak, and act in accordance to what is promised.

Many err in that they assume that whatever God promises automatically materializes. Nothing could be further from the truth. God promised Israel a land flowing with milk and honey, but did all of them enter into that land? No. Why? Because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19). Therefore it requires faith to receive of what God has provided for his children.

Faith is Not Generic
As stated earlier, faith is based on knowledge from God. Naturally all faith is not the same just as all knowledge is not the same. A person can have strong faith in one area while having weak faith in another area, simply because they may lack knowledge in the area where faith is weak. The remedy for this problem is to acquire the knowledge that can produce the desired belief.

Another possibility is that by failing to give attention to all aspects of what is known, people become forgetful and get out of faith. They may acknowledge something to be true without displaying the corresponding actions that prove their faith is living.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip (Hebrews 2:1).

In cases where people have heard the word of God in a particular area, but have not maintained a vibrant faith in that area, the solution is to revisit the knowledge that produced the faith in the first place.

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour (2 Peter 3:1, 2).

This is where consistent renewal of the mind comes into play. When knowledge is initially revealed, this is just the beginning of faith. In order for faith to persist it must be continually fed on the word of God. Unless beliefs are strengthened, they will naturally weaken.

The Anti-Faith
Faith has an imposter. In many respects it does a pretty good job of impersonating faith, but when it comes to producing actual results, it falls short. The enemy is simple mental agreement. How can one be differentiated from the other? It is simple: by the corresponding words and actions that are produced. Here is a great lesson on faith from James 2.

13For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. 14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

When it comes to faith, words are important. But mere words that fail to translate into any demonstrable action are an empty mockery of faith. To get a clearer picture of how actions follow real faith, the reader is urged to visit the eleventh chapter of Hebrews.

Tradition & Orthodoxy - Part I

Published by cchrisr March 19, 2008 in Theology. 18 Comments

Author’s Note: This is part 1 of a 4-part series on tradition adapted from a paper I recently authored.

What is the process surrounding the development of texts into sacred scriptures, particularly in new religious movements? Additionally, what relation, if any, does this process have with the defining of orthodoxy? This series will examine these two movements as a re-imagining of what is nominally considered tradition, “the process of handing something on to another generation and that which is handed on” [Robert Murray, “Tradition and Sacred Texts,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6:1 (Jan 2004): 4]

These two ideas—orthodoxy and scriptures—are codependent concepts that require the other for proper existence. Without a defined orthodoxy, it is nearly impossible to define a set of scriptures. Without a set of scriptures, there cannot be a strong definition of orthodoxy. These two movements interact with each other reciprocally: scriptures define orthodoxy while orthodoxy defines and interprets scriptures. In other words, it is a constant dialogue and interaction between theology and text that provides the context for present and future instances. All of orthodoxy and scripture is embedded in the context of the sum of its previous interactions and dialogues. This series will look at each of these, first from a theoretical perspective, followed by a few case examples. Tradition has the association that it has always been as such, but this article will show that this is only because the interactions between scriptures and orthodoxy force them to be reinterpreted as having always been the case.

Rightly Dividing
Christianity did not begin in a vacuum, nor with its theology fully formed at inception. Its orthodoxy was largely a process of refinement that is most visible in the many creeds that still stand today (e.g., the Nicene Creed). What we do know about the earliest groups of Christians is that they were, at times, wildly divergent with some believing Jesus to be purely divine without any kind of bodily form and others believing Jesus to be strictly human adopted by God later on [See Bart Ehrman, The New Testament (New York: Oxford, 2000) chapter 1 as well as Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2005) chapter 6].

Every one of these groups had in mind a particular set of texts as their sacred scriptures which provided the evidence they needed to define what they constructed as orthodoxy—proper belief. There is even enough evidence to suggest that “the proto-heretical, not the proto-orthodox, were in the majority at some points in the early Church” [John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1998): 40]. For instance, Arianism at one time was so popular that Jerome remarked that “the world groaned and was amazed that it had become Arian” [Quoted in Henderson, 43-44].

Throughout these events, support was provided by appeal to what was considered sacred scriptures. When Pope Leo I declared the Roman tradition as orthodoxy and focused church authority to the papal office, his support was based on the succession of popes that began with Jesus’ instruction to Peter in the gospels[Henderson, 44], not to the primacy of the Roman See, the influential location of the Roman church, some divine vision, or the popularity of its beliefs in the emerging Christianity.

In the various councils that fought against what became heresies—or more precisely, heterodoxies—creeds were formulated by appeals to scriptures. By the time of these councils, much of Christianity had come to a mostly agreed-upon set of scriptures; only a handful of books were disputed at the fringes [Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995): 206 and Appendix 1.D]. Given an early date of acceptance of the NT canon to be Athanasius’s Easter Letter of 367 and a late date to be the Council of Carthage in 397, much of what is now orthodox belief in Christianity was not finalized until this time or later [The doctrine of the trinity was not fully formed until the second Ecumenical Council (at Constantinople) in 381. Most other issues were not settled until at least the mid-fifth century].

The ability to define orthodoxy requires both an accepted set of scriptures and a motivation to do such. During much of Christianity’s first century, there was not a motivation for creating orthodoxy—something that is for longevity of the religion—because the primary focus was the imminent second coming of Christ. What good is it to discuss and flesh out a set of beliefs that will probably not come to fruition before the end of time. This is similar to the reasoning scholarship believes there were few books in the beginning of Christianity. As just mentioned above, the majority of sacred scriptures were agreed upon relatively early compared to the formation of orthodoxy. The greatest driving force behind the consolidation of belief into orthodoxy came almost exclusively from the proto-orthodox predecessors. In other words, the proponents of what would become orthodoxy wanted to promote their beliefs as orthodox and exclude other beliefs, even if those other beliefs were more common. As John Henderson mentions,

Despite the discovery of some Gnostic heresiology in the Nag Hammadi materials, there remains a “curious scarcity of anti-orthodox polemics in the heretical literature. Although it seems that second-century heretical authors were far more prolific than their orthodox counterparts, they appear uninterested in refuting the orthodox position.” [Henderson, 27]

This is a major factor to consider when analyzing the development of orthodoxy. Too often, it is believed that the battle for orthodoxy was a constant fight between both parties, but it seems that orthodoxy was brought by brute force rather than discussion [Henderson, 46].

The creation of orthodoxy depends upon the existence of an accepted set of sacred scriptures, a canon. It is important that the texts are treated as religiously authoritative and not just edifying. This distinction can be seen most clearly in the acceptance of Epistle of Barnabas. It was originally accepted as canonical by fathers such as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria, as well as being included in the earliest textual witnesses, including Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, later church fathers such as Athanasius and Rufinus removed it from their list of canonical books while still suggesting it as edifying for the church [McDonald, 271]. Through the use of scriptures, orthodoxy defines its core doctrines as well as those beliefs that are incompatible with them—heterodoxy.

The Christian Response to Homeschooling Bans

Published by Colin March 18, 2008 in Religion and Current Events. 8 Comments

I don’t have kids and wont for at least a couple years (*fingers crossed). However, my wife and I have began to contemplate our children’s education and have considered homeschooling as a likely scenario, based on our interpretation of the Bible. The recent ban on homeschooling in California and the restrictions in other parts of the world have got me thinking about what the Christian response to homeschooling bans should be.

Is the right and duty to raise Godly children one of those places where a Christian is required to make a stand against the government? Is this an area where God’s law trumps man’s law?

Some Biblical Support
First of all, I do not see the bible approaching this issue directly. Unfortunately, that makes things more speculative, and requires us to rely a bit more on interpretation. Even still, let’s consider a few passages from the Bible* that could be used to answer this question.

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6).

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children (Isaiah 54:13).

Thus says the LORD: “Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, For the Gentiles are dismayed at them.” (Jeremiah 10:2)

It is obviously critical that Children be instructed in both the fundamentals of salvation and secondly in Godly lifestyle. Unlike some Christians, I maintain that public schooling is not inherently evil - and it is (in many cases, but not all) a valid supplement to Godly education. Public school, however, should not be substituted for the necessary and commanded instruction that the parents are responsible for. Biblical education by the parents (both fathers and mothers) is a clear requirement in the bible.

Based on the passages, Christian parents are clearly accountable for their children’s education first - not the church, not the community and not the government.

The Nature of the Ban Dictates the Response
But let’s consider the nature of the ban, so that we can gauge the nature of the Christian response.

The Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles had ruled on Feb. 28 that parents must have a teaching credential to homeschool their children. Otherwise, children ages 6 to 18 must attend public or private school full-time until graduation from high school.

The court is arguing, contrary to the bible, that not only are parents not required to instruct their children, but that they are unqualified and criminals if they do so. Takes this idea to it’s logical end: if a Christian parent (who does not meet the state of California’s standards) schools their children full time, then she will be fined or thrown in jail.

The state apparatus has clearly inserted itself between the biblical duties of parents and the commands of God. The state is attempting to supplant God’s commandments with their own. It is one thing to have secular public education as an option - it is another to make it mandatory under threat of force.

This law then, should have no effect on Christians, who should continue to raise their kids as the bible instructs. Imprisonment and fines are not valid reasons to cease doing what God has clearly instructed as an essential role of parenting.

Obviously there are still many areas where this ban does not conflict. Christian parents are not required by the bible to provide all formal schooling. However, formal schooling is not to supplant biblical schooling - it is secondary. This ban on homeschooling (depending on enforcement) is restrictive of the parent’s biblical duty. Thus, American Christians now have a great opportunity to suffer for the sake of the gospel. As Paul wrote, “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29).

Christians (especially in modern America, where religion, tradition and state are so heavily mixed together) must remember that the government is not God and does not have authority to supplant God. The government is not our master and we are commanded not to submit to laws which are contrary to the Bible.

*All citations NKJV

Zeal For Truth