Thursday, January 26, 2012

a blog done by my close friend and brother in the lord Caleb Phillips


For the Sake of Argument.

First off, I want to say that I'm back & I apologize for not keeping up with things here on my blog. But, anyway, I want to get back to my topic.

Many of my readers may be aware of the "The Elephant Room" conference at Harvest Bible Chapel here in Chicagoland yesterday. There has been a lot of talk about the invitation of T.D. Jakes, a well known minister involved in the Word-Faith movement & has an affiliation, or at least HAD an affiliation, with the Oneness Pentecostal Movement which rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.

The invitation of T.D. Jakes by James MacDonald has been controversial, along with the interview of T.D. Jakes by Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll at the conference. There also has been talk about the handling of the meeting from Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald's end.

It's worth posting the discussion here.

Jakes: "My struggle is that sometimes oneness fit but sometimes it didn’t. I didn’t want to force the Scriptures to fit my theology.

Such as Jesus baptism. Or creation 'Let us.' 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.” That helped me rethink some of the things I was taught. I began to realize there are things that could be said about the Father that couldn’t be said about the Son. There are distinctives in the work of the Holy Spirit.

Here is where I find the problem. I don’t think that anything any of us believes cannot fully describe God."

Driscoll: "We would agree there is mystery. But within that, the issue between Trinitarianism and modalism is one God three persons, or one God manifesting in three ways."

Jakes: "I stand today on one God, three Persons. You describe manifestations as modalism, I call it Pauline. 'For God was manifest in the flesh.' The semantics can be this way or that way, but before the controversy started, Paul used the word manifested.

There are distinctives. Father didn’t bleed and die. The person of Jesus did that. We are baptized into the body by the Holy Spirit. That is consistent with my belief system.

I’m with you. I have been with you.

When we get to know people by their labels. Then comes all the baggage of how we define those labels.

We are taught in our society that if we disagree in a movement, we leave. I still have relationships and leadership with in oneness because I believe that we need to humble and say we are attempting to describe a God we have not seen fully, seen in a glass darkly.

Why should I throw rocks at you when what I understand through a glass darkly?

None of our books on the Godhead will be published in heaven.

Because people’s descriptions differ, it doesn’t make it demonic."


For those who want to read the whole thing, they may read it here

Interestingly, in a February 2000 article, Jakes gave a similarly vague statement.

"My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them.....While I mix with Christians from a broad range of theological perspectives, I speak only for my personal faith and convictions. I am not a theologian, and I avoid quoting even theologians who agree with me. To defend my beliefs, I go directly to the Bible.

My views on the Godhead are from 1 John 5:7-8, 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' (NKJV)

I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions—so separate that each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods.....In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H²O. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness....The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as 'manifestations' does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5-8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?....I deeply appreciate the chance to respond to any misunderstandings that may have resulted in part from my silence on these subjects. Little if any attention is given to any of them in my books or sermons. My silence has not been some veiled attempt to disguise my faith, which is demonstrated daily in the works I have been called to do. My voice may have seemed muted on these subjects, but I have made a distinct sound regarding the matters that I have been assigned to discuss with my generation. I have spoken boldly against domestic violence—and against physical, sexual and emotional abuse of women in this nation. I have thundered as an advocate of reconciliation between races and denominations, and for restoration of hurting souls to the healing properties of Christ's love.

I confess that I have remained aloof from the theological controversies. And I confess I have been universal in my associations, purposely ignoring opportunities to be divisive. But it was not lack of conviction, or absence of proper Christian ideals, that had taken my attention—I love the great principles and tenets of our faith, and I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet it is not the oneness of God for which I cry, it is for the oneness of His people.


Here's my thought on this. Driscoll & MacDonald have shown gross disrespect to those who disagree with them. In fact, it must be noted that Christian (Lutheran) apologist Chris Rosebrough was threatened with arrest yesterday at the Elephant Room after having his press pass revoked.

Yet, here's my OTHER issue. T.D. Jakes has acted like this matter is just a minor quibble, as if this is a debate on eschatology. This has been an essential issue in church history. There have been various heresies in the history of the church regarding this issue.

These heresies include:

Tritheism, which teaches that there are 3 Gods in the Trinity

Arianism, which teaches that Christ, while the first of God's created beings (a point which is heretical right there), was not fully divine. In fact, this is the heresy embraced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Partialism, which teaches that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are part of one God & that they only become God when they work together.

Macedonianism, which teaches that the Holy Spirit is a created being

Adoptionism, which teaches that Christ was born completely human, but was only adopted by the Father

Finally, the heresy that Jakes has been accused of adhering to is Sabellianism or Modalism, which teaches that the Father, Son & Spirit are simply "modes" or "manifestations" of the God.

Jakes, if, for the sake of argument, is not a Modalist, he would do well to strongly repudiate modalism & condemn it as heresy. He also would do well to study to the Athanasian Creed which firmly defines the doctrine of the Trinity. I also think that he would do well to apologize to those who he so cavalierly dismissed & saying that this was just a matter of semantics.

Furthermore, I also think that MacDonald needs to repent for inviting Jakes. While the particular context is different, the Apostle John is clear: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 1:10-11)

I close with a quote from Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck. He writes: "The doctrine of the Trinity is of incalculable importance for the Christian religion. The entire Christian belief system, all of special revelation, stands or falls with the confession of Gods Trinity....Re-creation is one divine work from beginning to end, yet it can be described in terms of three agents: it is fully accomplished by the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. A Christian’s faith life, accordingly, points back to three generative principles… We know ourselves to be children of the Father, redeemed by the Son, and in communion with both through the Holy Spirit. Every blessing, both spiritual and material, comes to us from the triune God. In that name we are baptized; that name sums up our confession; that name is the source of all the blessings that come down to us; to that name we will forever bring thanksgiving and honor; in that name we find rest for our souls and peace for our conscience. Christians have a God above them, before them, and within them. Our salvation, both in this life and in the life to come, is bound up with the doctrine of the Trinity."

Monday, January 23, 2012

Code orange review by Empowered By Christ



Code Orange Revival ~ Code heresy ABound 

Well this Sunday marked the last days of the 12 days of heresy brought to us by Steven Furtick’s Code Orange Revival at Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC. With the closing of the event that seems to be set to launch Furtick’s career as TBN’s (The Blasphemy Network)  next Televangelist is over does not mean the fallout from this prodigious heretical event is over. The damage from the bankrupt teachings of this event will be with us for something.  Leaving us to deal with a triage of wounded brothers and sisters that bought into the heterodoxy sold at what are now calling the Code Vomit Revival.

Over the last 12 days of this event  we have heard from 12 different speakers, 10 of which where definitely teachers of heretical narcissistic eisegesis such as; Steven Furtick, host and seeker-driven pastor of Elevation Church; Craig Groeschel, visionary and creator of the Propensity Gospel preaching LifeChurch.tv;  Prosperity preacher Jentezen Franklin; Hillsong darling Christine CaineJoel Osteen’s worship leader, Israel Houghton; Word-Faith proponent Stovall Weems, lead pastor at Celebration Church in Jacksonville, FL: Ed Young, the sex pastor and author best know for such recusancy books as “Sexperiment”; Modalist (Non-Trinitarian) “Bishop” T.D. JakesPerry Noble senior pastor of New Spring Church in South Carolina, a most prominent mega-church. Noble has rapidly become a favorite among those who shrink away from "traditional" church services; Lastly we have on the ducat of heresy Pastor Kevin Gerald.  Gerald pastors Champions Center in the Pacific Northwest along with his wife, Sheila. Yes, you read that correctly. The Geralds are co-pastors, so already we have a significant problem. The motto of this "church" is "Equipping people to live successful Christian lives." I would love to know Kevin Gerald's definition of "success," because I have a sneaking suspicion that someone like, oh, the Apostle Paul, would never measure up to such a definition.

Well there were a few bright spot among the theological murkiness and monkary that was prevalent at the Code Orange Revival. One of those bright spots was Matt Chandler who serves as lead pastor of The Village Church in Highland Village, TX. Chandler spoke a very powerful and biblically centered message. He chastised those who were making the bible and their preaching of the bible of them. He told those in attendance, to the dismay of Steven Furtick, that the bible was NOT about them but about Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelations. This message was not received well by Furtick.  This could be seen by his body language and the fact that the Elevation 24/7 TV network did not rebroadcast his sermon until they where exposed for not rebroadcasting it by bloggers and Tweets. Steven Furtick the next day sent out an apology Tweet stating that they would after all be rebroadcasting Chandler’s sermon. It seems that Furtick’s idol chart of narcissistism was tipped over by Chandler’s clear cut and Christ centered message.

Another bright spot was Pastor James MacDonald, senior pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in the Chicago land area and voice behind his radio program called “Walk in the Word”. MacDonald spoke twice during this event once on Saturday night and again on Sunday morning. MacDonald’s message on Saturday night was a biblical message about repentance and the need for both people and the church to repent of sins. His message was strait on and direct.  Judging by the body language  of Furtick he had that worried look about him like maybe it was the first time he himself actually heard biblical teaching and the Gospel being preached and not the law.

 If you were following our Twitter feed at EBCApologetics on his sermon you would have seen a blow by blow analysis of his sermon. We graded his sermon as a B+ overall. He could have earned an A if was not for the weak ending by the out of context use of Revelations 3:20. He sadly misstated this verse as Jesus knocking at the door of your heart wanting to come in. When we look at this in context we see that this has nothing to do with Jesus wanting to come into our hearts.  Instead Jesus is rebuking the Laodicea church telling them to repent. Revelation 3:20 is a call for churches to repent not for Jesus to enter the door of your heart.

As I mentioned earlier MacDonald spoke twice in this event the second time was on Sunday Morning. In this message he spoke on Tithing. I wish this message was as solid and biblical as his first message was. Sadly it was not  only earning a C by our standards of biblical accuracy. MacDonald Sunday talk was on the subject of money and Tithing during which he misquoted Malachi 3:6-12. He spent an adsorbent amount of time telling us that if we do not tithe we will not be blessed by God, which is an Old Testament teaching not a New Testament church teaching. He even went as far as to state that the LAW of tithing superseded Christ’s completion of the Law on the Cross. That in Christ’s death on the cross did not stop the law when it comes to tithing and that tithing was still in play for today. Did you hear that ripping sound? Oh that was Macdonald taking Malachi 3 out of context. First all when Christ died on the Cross fully completed the Law at 613 laws of the Old Testament. Secondly, by MacDonald stating what he did has ineffectively said that Christ’s atoning work on the Cross and our Justification by His imputation was not enough. Thirdly, there is no New Testament admonition to pay tithes. The reason is because we are not under law; that is, we don't "have to" pay tithes. We don’t see paying tithes in the Acts 2 as a required function for the church.

While we shouldn't feel obligated to pay tithes. We should what you give to our church and that is between you and God. Not you, your pastor and God.  We should be giving because it is Christ that lives within us and the Holy Spirit that makes us want to give and give graciously to others and our churches.

Sadly Macdonald took a time that could have been spent preaching a solid biblical message and giving the Gospel to those in attendance and watching online and wasted it on preaching the Law. The only thing his preaching of the Law did was bring people closer to sinning because the preaching of the Law is a school master to show us our sin. The Law does not save us from it. So sadly I would say since there was no Gospel given Sunday by James MacDonald in his message Sunday no one heard the saving call of the Lord because of the Law of the Tithe being preached.

Over all the Code Orange Revival was no revival at all. I would venture to say that the Holy Spirit was not there. There may have been a Spirit there but it wasn’t holy. Steven Furtick had a real good chance to make something good of this event by enlisting some solid biblical teachers to speak at this event. Instead he choose to promote heresy and narcissistic eisegesis that only raised the ego of the speakers and the flesh of those watching. While some may argue with me and others calling us "haters"  and say that “life change” was happening at this event. I have news for them a “life change” may have happen but when you have emotionalism and unbiblical preaching that “life change” is not a Christ change. It is a change based on human emotion, humanism and  one's ego wanting pumping.  

The Code Orange Revival was not a success as Furtick wished it would be. Instead it exposed his unbiblical alliances and actually has helped those defending the true Christian faith against wolves in sheep’s clothing job a little easier by castings a light on all the heretics he associates with. 

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

John Hus, Wyclif, and Simony in the Medieval Church by brotherFelipe Diez III


John Hus, Wyclif, and Simony in the Medieval Church



 the  late 1300s and early 1400s were marked with numerous works written by concerned individuals aiming to spark reform within the Roman Catholic Church. These individuals used strong polemical and accusatory rhetoric that was seen by many in the Roman church as an affront to its leaders, thereby inevitably causing a bitter conflict of writings, words, and actions that at times sealed the fates of many who joined in support of this movement which was deemed “heretical” on various fronts by the Roman Church. This essay will examine some key sections of John Hus’s “On Simony” and John Wyclif’s “On the Pastoral Office (Part 1)” where certain similarities and differences will be explored in the context of the thesis. It will be argued that judging by some of the contents of both treatises, it can be held as certain that both reformers asserted that the worthiness of a person to hold an ecclesiastical office should be based primarily on the consistency of the character of that person in relation to the reformers’ understandings of the teachings of the Bible with regards to how a faithful minister should live and act.  In other words, there exists a correlation in the thought of both reformers (as seen in both treatises) that loosely expressed the following pattern of thought: Ministers in the Church are to live and serve according to certain precepts that may be found in Scripture. Many of them seem to be falling short of the mark in diverse ways. Therefore, they should not serve in ecclesiastical office since they have transgressed and continue to violate the precepts (offered by both reformers.) Since the condemnations of Wyclif and Hus happened within the time span of a few decades, it is reasonable to say that they would have experienced somewhat similar acts of corruption in the ecclesiastical systems of their respective lands. This is asserted because it is difficult to imagine that there was a major change in the political / ecclesiastical atmosphere from the time when “On the Pastoral Office” and “On Simony” were written.1 In any case, both treatises bear witness to perceived evils that were familiar to both reformers, along with what they considered to constitute a righteous life. In the opening paragraph of part I of Wyclif’s essay, he states:
“He [the pastor] ought to be holy, so strong in every sort of virtue that he would rather desert every kind of human intercourse, all the temporal things of this world, even mortal life itself, before he would sinfully depart from the truth of Christ.”2
Shortly after, he continues:
“..it is necessary for every pastor or curate especially to be instructed in the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, which are in their essence the Lord Jesus Christ.”3

From these two statements we notice a moral example that Wyclif believes to be a standard for a Christian leader. Hus’s treatise, being much more lengthy and specific, contains noteworthy examples that agree with Wyclif’s statements:
            “Accordingly, in order to be a worthy bishop of God, one must have previously led a holy life, and must have been called of God…and…he must consider himself unworthy…and…he must do so humbly, for the sake of God’s glory and his salvation as well as that of other men.”4
Hus also states:
“In writing to Timothy, he [Paul] adds that “he must have a good testimony of them that are without (that is, from strangers); lest he fall into derision or into hate, and the snare of the devil.” 5
Hus attempts to apply many of Timothy’s admonitions to the clergy.
Both reformers believed that ecclesiastical authorities should exercise humility, possess holiness of character, and maintain a regard for the spiritual welfare of those in their care. However, one difference in the pastoral approach taken by Hus is that the tone of “On Simony” is more accusatory, markedly polemical, and specific to types of clergy and their respective abuses. Of course, Hus had much more space to express his disgust with the ecclesiastical system, as his treatise is longer, but even if it was reduced to the proportion of Wyclif’s essay, one would still possibly be able to sense more heat and vitriol in Hus. Wyclif focuses less on specific examples, as his motives were possibly to expound more on key characteristics of ecclesiastical leaders than to write a systematic denunciation of the whole system, as Hus seems to have done. Hus gives specific categories to popes, bishops, priests, curates, and even laypeople, and proceeds to apologetically dismantle any argument that these may have in favor of their behavior, which Hus perceives as constituting simony:
            “The titular bishops, furthermore, excuse themselves on the ground that they would have nothing to wear and to eat if they did not charge for ordinations. To that, in the first place, may be answered that since they are the bishop’s substitutes or the assistants, they should be given the necessary means by the bishop, for the latter feeds his pages and many others who do not possess the ecclesiastical rank.”6

Hus addresses certain objections to his charges of simony against clergy by offering solutions to the excuses commonly offered by clergy with regards to why they perform what Hus views as simony. Many such examples are offered in his treatise. Hus argues that one does not have to resort to simony in order to survive in a clerical office. On the other hand, Wyclif does not take this route of dismantling any sort of argument presented by his opponents in his work. This is why “On Simony” might be classified as a more apologetic work that is bent on giving a remedy for common problems in the Church.
            Some other similarities could be pointed out in both treatises with regards to the necessity of possessing a strong Christian character while in ecclesiastical office. In the following statement, Wyclif forms a vital link between an axiom of character and a practical example of how this trait should be displayed:
            “But each priest, curate, or pastor has the ability so to follow Christ in his manner of life; therefore he should do it. This moved the Apostles and the other priests of the Lord after them to imitate Christ in this evangelical poverty. The Apostle understands by the word alimenta food and drink sufficient for nourishment. He did not mean splendor or superfluity of food…and he means by the wordtegumenta both the vestments of the body and also suitable houses which are to protect the faithful.”7

Wyclif asserts that it is a necessity for clergy to imitate Christ and the apostles in limiting the amount of personal possessions to a sufficient and reasonable degree, not exceeding what is necessary for the successful operation of a person’s ecclesiastical office. He mentions food, clothing, and shelter which are usually considered a person’s most basic needs. Therefore, it may be reasonable to say that Wyclif would not have approved of a curate who feasted often or who owned a manor or vast expanses of land. A few lines after the aforementioned quote, Wyclif states that “…it follows that all things that are in excess will be superfluous and will be sin.”8 He has now not only outlined how Christian ministers ought to act (after the manner of Christ and the Apostles). He has now provided specific examples of biblical / moral ways to have possessions and calls any violation of his moral examples “sin.” From this, it can be deduced that Wyclif is speaking to people during his time whom he has observed to have violated the moral rule that one ought not to live more abundantly than is stated in the scriptures (following the logic of the alimenta / tegumenta comments). Since this idea is presented early on in the treatise, it is a possibility that a great many ministers were living superfluous lives, and not just a handful. Wyclif states: “for all these [ministers] heap up for themselves superfluous goods by exceeding too far the apostolic rule [of poverty]…”9
Wyclif, however, did not assert that all holders of office should live in the same fashion. Since different ministers had different functions, it seemed reasonable to Wyclif that those who are called bishops or prelates may and probably should possess larger homes and even more goods:
            “…the apostle teaches that a bishop ought to be hospitable and well provided with a good house, which could not be unless he possessed  goods beyond mere necessary food. Therefore it is permitted to the bishop both in food and in clothing to exceed what is strictly necessary.”10

The main reason listed for the “allowed” superfluity of possessions is so that proper hospitality can be shown by the bishop toward others. This might have also included the responsibility of bishops to give alms to the poor because they were endowed with more. However, Wyclif protests that biblical hospitality was often not shown by these prelates, who probably had much more than what was needed for mere hospitality:
            “But now our prelates are perverted on the side of the devil, not sustaining the poor by hospitality, but rather secular lords and tyrants, who do not need such alms, but are commonly gorged with inhuman and gluttonous feasts, and yet are satiated sumptuously without a qualm from the goods of the poor.”11

Here, Wyclif raises his previously neutral tone against certain prelates (bishops) who were certainly being hospitable, but not exactly toward the poor nor for noble reasons. It appears that they were attempting to gain the favor of temporal lords by holding feasts for them. It is then safe to say that Wyclif would have viewed this favoritism as sinful even though he did not explicitly mention the word in quote.
            John Hus continues his polemical attacks on the clergy, not only condemning them explicitly, but now he explains and uses Old Testament references to denounce ministers:
            “Accordingly, now you can discern who are the heirs of Balaam: namely, those who preach on account of pay and condemn men unrighteously, or give false advice, as Balaam gave to Balak, in order to lead men astray by fornication by keeping God’s commands. O how many priests there are in that road! For there are not many fornicators [among them] who spend the alms upon the seduction of maidens, widows, and wives, and who feed and clothe prostitutes more sumptuously than husbands their wives?”12

Hus explains the origins of the word simony (Simon the Sorcerer). He also makes statements like the aforementioned, where he links the practices of ministers to those of antagonistic Old Testament figures such as Balaam. On another instance, Hus references Jeroboam, in that “whoever would fill his palm would be appointed priest of the idols.”13 Hus then says “Accordingly, those who in like manner accept money for making bishops or priests or for granting other benefices are followers of Jeroboam.”14
Hus, like Wyclif, accuses clergy of spending money that should otherwise be in the hands of the poor and needy. If secular lords are not being hosted, then it is a person in higher ecclesiastical office, or even a concubine. Hus goes into greater length and detail, but both reformers notice this trend. In any case, they saw this misuse of funds as a breach of biblical mandate, therefore, constituting sinful behavior. In a few instances in Hus’s treatise, he appears to be upset by what he sees as a laxity in discipline with regards to these offences. The pope, archbishops, and bishops seem to not be rebuking those in other offices that practice bribery and simony. Hus, again, appeals to the Old Testament (this time citing the Prophet Elisha):
“Alas! How many such sins are committed by the pope, the bishops, and parish priests who do not, like Elisha, punish their servants for this sin, but share with them their material gains as well as their sin!”15
Hus thought that ecclesiastical authorities had the duty to discipline those in lower offices if charges of bribery, simony, or any sort of perceived excess would have been brought up. Yet according to him, there seemed to be no accountability system set up to guard against these situations.
            Both reformers seem to agree that a righteous character is a mark of worthiness in maintaining a church office. Both of them have outlined what they have seen as sins in the clergy with references to scriptural morality as an indicator that these sins are contrary to what ought to be. Now the question stands as to what the reformers wrote regarding whether the accused clergy should stay in office or not, and whether or not they are to be supported by the people. Wyclif maintains that:
            “From these considerations [accusations against clergy] the faithful conclude that when a curate is notoriously negligent in his pastoral office, they as subjects should, yea, ought, to withdraw offerings and tithes from him and whatever might offer occasion for the fostering of such wickedness. For proof we note first that John commands that such, even on account of lesser deviation in doctrine, ought not to be greeted as sons of God by the faithful.”16

Wyclif asserts here that such sinful curates should not be given financial assistance of any kind and then seems to imply that they should not even be received as Christians at all. A while later on the same page he then goes to say that “the faithful ought not to hear the Masses of such priests.”17 This same rhetoric appears only a couple of more times in Wyclif’s “On the Pastoral Office (part I).” John Hus holds a similar view:
            “For whenever a bishop sells the gift of the Holy Spirit, even though he dazzles men by his episcopal robes, in the eyes of God he is already deprived of his priesthood. Accordingly, the holy canons condemn the heresy of simony, and ordain that those who demand money for the gift of the Holy Spirit be deprived of priesthood.”18

Hus not only agrees that a simoniac minister should be deposed of his office (even by divine law), but that if the church would practice what it preached (based on canon law), it would then depose someone who exchanged religious services for money. In this case, based on the evidence from the treatises, Hus appears to take the matter a step further to have these ministers vacate their professions. Hus even goes so far as to accuse the Pope of simony:
            “The third form of papal simony is the appointment of bishops and priests for money. A proof of this is at present plainly to be seen in the payment of many thousand gulden for the archbishopric of Prague…but if any pope avoids simony and follows the Saviour in his manner of life, he has right to make use of all things in the world, just as the apostles.”19

He argues that even the Pope could be a simoniac, but that if he avoids sinning in this way, then his office is legitimate and he has the power to be the Pope. Hus is not arguing against the papal office, but against simony itself. Although he does not explicitly say that the pope should be removed on account of simony, it is not difficult to imagine that Hus would advocate for the removal of a simoniac pope (after a trial) since he does argue for the deposition of other ministers in parts of his writing. A seemingly popular argument in those times with regards to the pope is that the pope was not able to sin and therefore, could not be a simoniac. This is one of the reasons why Hus wrote his treatise in the first place. He argues:
            “But perhaps you say, “in this world the pope is the most holy father.” I answer that if you prove that he lives the most holy life, following Christ in his poverty, humility, meekness, and work, then I shall admit that he is the most holy. But his manifest covetousness, pride, and other sins predispose men to believe that he is not the most holy father!”20

Hus clearly believes that the pope is not living a worthy Christian life. He continues:
            “Furthermore, they put forth the excuse that he is the most holy on account of his office. But the saints reply that office does not make a man holy, as is proved by the apostle Judas and by the bishops and priests who murdered Christ.”21

Hus is admonishing his readers to understand that any ecclesiastical office does not make a person virtuous in any way, but the content of the character of the person does, in the context of not falling into simony. Again, he is not arguing for the dismantling of the ecclesiastical system, but for the accepting of Hus’s accusations against many types of clergy of simony. It also sensible for delegated authorities to take steps to remove corrupt clergy (even the pope) from their seats:
            “For if he [the pope] does not follow Christ and Peter in his manner of life more than others [other clergy], he should be called the apostolic adversary rather than the apostolic successor.”22

Hus appeals again to the authority of Christ (and now Peter) and their holy conduct as examples of how the pope (especially) and others should act in and out of their offices. This evidence provided from Hus’s treatise gives us room to say that he would have wanted the Pope to leave office.
            John Hus and John Wyclif have written on what they experienced as open and unrepentant sinful living by many ministers of God in their times. Although their treatises differ in length and organization of content, it can be deduced that they were not against any ecclesiastical office in and of itself, but against the corrupt people that held them. They would have pressed for the removal of those people, including popes, since an objective moral law was being overtly violated; that of the Bible. Their interpretations differed slightly, but for them, simony was to hold no place in any church setting. They clearly saw a distinction between what was holy and unholy and could apply these standards to the ministers of their time. They both understood that a person would be worthy of office only if they had arrived there honestly and if they continued to hold it faithfully. The Bible was to guide the character of a person at church, from a pope to a layperson. Any breach of this heavenly truth, especially as done so by the high medieval clergy, would mean that they had the obligation to leave office. If the system was upright and just, it seems, there would be that accountability and atmosphere of the fragrance of Christ that these reformers so desired in the Church. Whether or not their cry for reform was heeded is another thing. But according to them and many others, consistent Christian character was the mark of entry into service to the people and to the Lord.
Endnotes
1 Many scholars place the date of “On the Pastoral Office” as being written a year or two prior to 1380. Hus’s “On Simony” was published in 1413, one year before the Council of Constance was convened. Scholars have stated that one of the reasons Hus wrote so vehemently was that Wyclifism’s reformatory influence had already taken root, and the ripples of those waves were probably felt in other lands.
2 Spinka, Matthew. Advocates of Reform, From Wyclif to Erasmus. Westminster John
Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 2006, p. 32
3 Ibid., p. 33. Wyclif references 1 Cor. 13:13
4 Ibid., p. 222
5 Ibid., p. 223. Hus references 1 Tim 3:7
6 Ibid., p. 230
7 Ibid., p.33
8 Ibid., p.33
9 Ibid., p.33
10 Ibid., p.34 Wyclif references 1 Tim. 3:2,4
11 Ibid., p. 35
12 Ibid., p. 209
13 Ibid., p. 208 1 Kings 13:33, 34. Commentator Matthew Spinka, in the same page, asserts that this passage does not explicitly speak of Jeroboam as one who traded money in this fashion.
14 Ibid., p. 208
15 Ibid., p. 208
16 Ibid., p. 38. Wyclif references 2 John 10
17 Ibid., p. 38
18 Ibid., p. 205. Hus accused clergy of selling religious services including the entrance into ecclesiastical office.
19 Ibid., p. 213 – 214. Hus accused the Pope of having received money from Nicholas Puchnik for the position of archbishop of Prague.
20 Ibid., p. 212
21 Ibid., p. 212
22 Ibid., p. 213

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

bad teaching from even worse "pastor"


Biography
The Rev. Stephen Williams is co-pastor, with his wife Jamie, of the United Methodist Church of Libertyville, Illinois, a congregation of more than 1,500 members in Chicago’s northern suburbs. Stephen earned the Doctor of Ministry in Preaching degree from North Park Theological Seminary, and was awarded the 2011 Chicago Sunday Evening Club Award in Preaching by the Association of Chicago Theological Seminaries Doctor of Ministry in Preaching program. [Biographical information is correct as of the broadcast date noted above.]

 Stephen William's Message 
"Sabbath Rest"
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the 20th century’s most inspiring figures. He once said, “There is more to life than increasing its speed.” I think the God of all Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews would agree with Gandhi’s statement. There is more to life than increasing its speed. Slowing down, being still, resting wherever we are in life’s journey is the most spiritual of practices.

In the opening chapter of the book of Genesis, the Creation story is wonderfully told. Many have delighted in its peculiar rhythm of “God said…” and then—voila!—it was so. But that divine rhythm in the epic Creation poem points out a helpful pattern that has sustained humans for countless generations. At each step of the Creation story, God the Creator steps back, slows down, reflects on the enormity and beauty of what is unfolding, evolving, and pauses to appreciate the moment. And each time God pauses in the Creation story, after each day of Creation, God gives a wondrous affirmation, “And it was good…And it was good…,” then finally, “Behold, it was very good.”

Slowing down has never been easy for most of humanity, the only part of the Creation who alone are set apart as made in God’s very own image. It is perhaps our haste that is the source of so much anxiety, sorrow, and hardship to which history bears witness. We do not give ourselves much permission to slow down, step back, or reflect on the glory of our own humanity, that we are the image bearers of the Divine. We do not pause long enough to discover, as Jesus taught, “You are all sons and daughters of God” or, as he taught elsewhere, “…the kingdom of heaven is within you.”

I am the proud owner of an old piece of machinery, a 1984 Honda Goldwing motorcycle. I drive my motorcycle almost everywhere, whenever the weather allows. Now if you are a motorcycle aficionado, you know that the 84 Goldwing is a bit of a classic. Motorcycle buffs call it romantically “the last naked Goldwing.” That description gets a lot of buzz in some circles, but it is a lot more erotic than the facts allow. If you saw it, you would swear that it is just a beat up, old motorcycle. But I love that bike. It, perhaps like me, is missing a few non-vital parts—I recently had a knee replacement surgery—but the engine on my Goldwing works like a charm. It purrs in a perfect rhythm. It runs strong and true and gets me to the places I love, out in the beauty of Creation.

So on my Sabbath days, and in my Sabbath moments, I leave the suburbs of Chicago behind and go out to the cornfields of DeKalb, or up the shoreline of Lake Michigan or beyond, to explore the endless green garden called Wisconsin. Around nearly every bend of two lane black top I can find, there is always another delight awaiting: a field, a meadow, a stream, or just the sight of a father scooping up a kid and playing with his child. Somehow, it never gets old. It never fails to refresh my spirit or speak to my soul. If you slow down, ease off the gas a bit, the beauties of the creation are not hard to find.

Almost everyone knows this. Not everyone practices it. The classic James Taylor song, “Up on a Roof,” pays homage to Sabbath or at least the Sabbath idea. “On the roof it’s peaceful as can be. And I don’t let nobody bother me…” We need a place where we can be still, a place where we can remember and reflect on who we are and on whose we are. To dare to believe in the post-modern world that we as humans are the ones, as male and female, who are made in the image of God, is still a breathtaking proposition. It is still a revolutionary thought. Surely it secures once, for all, forever, our individual dignity and worth, which no one can ever touch or bother. And to then act on this idea by following the divine rhythm, the divine pattern of slowing down, being still, seeking out green pastures or sitting beside still waters, or just going up on the roof of a tenement, allows us to open our souls to God our Creator who can speak, God our Redeemer, who does speak.

I love the creation story in Genesis, chapter 1, because it suggests that God the Creator is still creating, still “hovers” above God’s good creation. It says, “In the beginning the Spirit of God hovered above the darkness and the deep that was formless and empty.” The remarkable Hebrew verb “to hover” is found only a few other times in Hebrew Scripture. In Deuteronomy, God is like “an eagle that stirs up her nest and hovers over her young, that spreads her wings to catch them and carries them aloft” [Deuteronomy 32:11]. It is a maternal image of a mother eagle, which hovers over her brood. God hovers over the Creation. Later God says to the Hebrew people, “You yourselves have seen what I did, how I carried you on eagles’ wings…” [Exodus 19:4].

This image of God the Creator hovering, birthing and caring for humanity is a recurring theme in the Bible. Just as an eagle spreads out her wings to catch her young and carry them aloft, so God spreads out divine wings of mercy to catch us and lift us skyward. And like an eagle with her young, God must teach us what we need to know if we are to be truly free to soar the heights of the Creation.

Surprisingly, God’s very first object lesson for humanity is to teach us how to rest. After making humankind as male and female in the divine image, after urging humanity to be fruitful and multiply and to exercise a loving dominion over all that has been made, God rests from God’s work, declaring it very good. This pattern, the order of working and resting, is God’s invitation to all to learn the ways and rhythms that allow us to enjoy life. There is more to life than increasing its speed. Remember the Sabbath. Rest is an essential ingredient of life, as necessary as air. Without rest, we cannot sustain the energy we need to have life, let alone enjoy life.

My youngest son Joshua just gave up a great job in Denver to go to New York City and work for Teach for America. He is now at a charter school in the South Bronx, a very urban neighborhood. His days are full. For the last two months he has been in “teacher boot camp” as he calls it, and 15-17 hour days are routine. But Joshua feels that his life is blessed and he is grateful for an opportunity to give back in tangible ways to a world that has been so very good to him.

Service in a neighborhood that does not have all the advantages he enjoyed as a child is a path that seems right and fulfilling. Still, as a dad I worry about my son in New York City. Life there seems so big and hurried and harried, at least to a pastor from Chicago. So, as a person of faith, I am hoping that God will lift him up on eagles’ wings. I am hoping he finds his way up to a roof top or two and can take in the magic of the stars, or can enjoy jogging in Central Park, which still has some green space, I hear.

I am hoping he can find time to pause, and smell the roses and understand life has its peculiar, life-giving rhythms. In the words of Wayne Muller, “Our willingness to rest depends on what we believe we will find there. At rest, we come face-to-face with the essence of life. If we believe that life is fundamentally good, we will seek out rest as a taste of that goodness.”  May we slow down, if only to taste and see that the Lord is good. May we pause, to look up and perceive a majestic presence above. May we rest, and discover that eagle wings are spread out beneath us. “Be still and know that I am God” is still the wisdom of the ages. “Be still” and discover that God is good and that God is love.

Conversation with Stephen Williams

Daniel Pawlus: If you’d like a printed transcript, CD or DVD of the message you just heard from Stephen Williams, we’ll tell you how to place an order at the end of the program. Or you can visit our website at 30goodminutes.org to watch the video again or read the text anytime. Now, let’s talk with Stephen Williams. Stephen, thank you for being with us today and congratulations on the Sunday Evening Club award.

Stephen Williams: Thank you.

Daniel Pawlus: You called out for us something that we need to be reminded of always and that’s this challenge of slowing down. I thought I’d start by asking an interesting question of both of you. This might be a non sequitur, but as pastors, is it any easier to talk about this with a certain size congregation? If you have larger group of folks to get into some kind of active dialogue or sermons around this, or is it just the nature of your church moving at a certain speed that may work against this? Stephen, let’s start with you. I’d love to have Lillian answer that as well.

Stephen Williams: I think that’s a great question. My experience is people everywhere are pretty harried and pretty busy and so the encouragement to people to slow down, to do Sabbath, is something that resonates with almost everyone that I know. My great concern is that people are so busy that they don’t pause and reflect. Rest is a gift from God, who created us to enjoy life. The idea of pursuing happiness and allowing ourselves to be happy is part, I think, of the Creator’s mandates to love ourselves.

Daniel Williams: You’re an active person, Lillian.

Lillian Daniel: I’m like a shark. I’m going to die if I’m not moving forward! But I think that’s a great question to ask. One of the ironies is some of our best church leaders, the most devoted members of our church, then become the busiest and don’t get to practice Sabbath. I think it’s something we all have to look at in churches, that sort of desire to stay busy, busy, busy. It used to be, I think, that the church was a place that reinforced Sabbath and asked people to take a day apart. But now the culture doesn’t support that and people are even struggling to make it to church, with sports events and games scheduled in the morning. How do you speak to that in your congregation?

Stephen Williams: Well, I think that’s a concern for all pastors. I think the other side of the coin though is you don’t want to encourage Sabbath as an excuse for not doing work, not being engaged in the world. At our church we have a group of ten people that just went to Gulfport, Mississippi and this is six years in a row since Hurricane Katrina. So Sabbath rest is not an excuse to disengage from the world. I think of James’ statement, “Faith without works is dead.” We’re called to be engaged in meaningful work, but the idea that sometimes we just need to pause and reflect on what’s going on around us I think is terribly important. Sometimes, especially with our youth, they’re just over engaged, over committed and almost too busy. So I think you see that point well made with a lot of our youth.

Daniel Pawlus: I wonder if the two of you will allow me to throw you another zinger perhaps. And that is working with a spouse in ministry, which is a new experience for you, Stephen. And we know that Lou [Lillian’s husband] is very engaged in the church, as well. So again, both of you, how would you respond to that interesting challenge of wanting to do good work and then you’re together all the time. Where is that space to just be still?

Lillian Daniel: I love my husband, but I could never work with him! So I want to know how you do it. I mean, if you work together in the ministry, which is so demanding, and then you come home, how do you have time with each other and not feel like you’re working 24/7?

Stephen Williams: Well, I think Jamie and I have found a really good rhythm. I think in some respects because she has been a pastor of a number of different churches and a very successful pastor, we have always been engaged in the conversation of how to serve our congregations in a good and helpful way. She’s a colleague, she’s a friend, and she’s just a person I respect in so many ways. So it’s been a real joy and a delight to actually be partners in ministry for the first time.

Lillian Daniel: Do you guys have some kind of Sabbath of your own creation, rules like we’re not going to talk about the church at these times?

Daniel Pawlus: This is great for our audience. A lot of pastors watch the program, so give us some good advice.

Stephen Williams: Once a week we say let’s not talk about the church anymore because, again, as important as it is, as rich an experience and great blessing as it is to our lives, there are times you have to focus on other parts of our world, our children, our friends, family members that aren’t close by. So you do have to give it a break from time to time. That’s for sure. But we both enjoy being together and on our Sabbath days frequently go to the botanic gardens, or she likes to go on the motorcycle with me from time to time.
There you go.

Daniel Pawlus: Great.

Lillian Daniel: We were saying we thought it was funny that you chose as your metaphor for taking a pause a very fast moving machine! How did you get involved in riding the motorcycle?

Stephen Williams: Well, that’s a great story. I had one in high school and then at the last church I was at in Lombard a number of different people were motorcycle buffs. So one thing led to another and it actually is a great way for me to get out and explore the countryside. Before I had the bike, whenever I had a day off I would go into Chicago. Since then, I always go west towards DeKalb or up into Wisconsin. So it’s been actually a great way for me just to go somewhere, get off, and just go for a walk and enjoy the Creation.

Daniel Pawlus: Stephen, you talked about your son in this Teach for America organization, a wonderful organization, obviously.

Stephen Williams: Yes.

Daniel Pawlus: Lillian, you have a son who is a freshman in college this year, too. Sorry to keep asking you both questions, but how do you speak about this to your children, especially at that age when they are ensconced with technology and the idea of speed and keeping up in the world? It’s interesting stuff. Lillian, why don’t you take that one first? What do you think?

Lillian Daniel: Well, I think it’s a huge challenge. But I think our kids are actually watching us a lot more than we think. And so we tend to point to the children as being technology driven, but a lot of times it’s the parents who are pulling out the Blackberry or answering the phone during dinner. I think in many ways we’ve got to take responsibility for what’s happening with our children.

Daniel Pawlus: Absolutely.

Stephen Williams: I think one of the things that I’ve enjoyed in watching my young children use technology is how they use it to connect with their friends; when Josh was doing a semester abroad, the thrill of doing Skype and just being able to talk to him. I mean, technology can actually help create community. I think the other danger is that we can cocoon with it and not engage in face-to-face dialogue and networking, which is also equally important. But I think it can be a tool that actually allows us to order our lives in such a way we create Sabbath moments. And certainly my son in New York City with Teach for America is just a whiz at reaching out and maintaining a wide circle of friends. I frankly marvel at it.

Lillian Daniel: I love the idea that technology doesn’t just speed us up but also can help slow us down.

So, I want to say that I am not going after him just because of what he said but because this so called, pastor was one that I was under before I was saved. I know a lot about him outside of what was going on in this TV joke show. But with this I want to break down this so called talk or whatever you wish to call it, and then I will give you some info on him from an insider of his old church. But first the brake down.
                “Mahatma Gandhi was one of the 20th century’s most inspiring figures. He once said, “There is more to life than increasing its speed.” I think the God of all Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews would agree with Gandhi’s statement.”  The Gods of the Hindus most likely would agree with this because of the link to Gandhi and Buddhism to Hinduism, Buddhism came out of Hinduism, and in fact we see a brake with in Buddhism, and it going two ways with Tibetan Buddhism (Mahayana) and Theravada Buddhism, this was done when The Chinese monk Yijing who visited India in the 7th century CE, distinguishes Mahāyāna from Hīnayāna as follows.
So would the God of the Christians agree with this statement? Well the only way to find this to be truth is by the bible its self. Does the bible tell us to slow down are life? Does it tell us to do anything outside of what we do to bring the glory to God alone? Well there is no verse to back us slowing down are live and for the Sabbath Rest idea put out by Mr. Williams would be talking about the day that God took to rest after his work in genesis 2, “Gen 2:2  And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.[1]”  We hear that the seventh day was for the Lord, there is a difference in the Lords day and the seventh day of rest. “WSC Q. 59. Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath? A. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.[2]” but does this mean anything to what was said by Gandhi yes it does because of what is said after it by the so called pastor. He is saying that all the gods of old and the one true God would say that it is true what was said buy Gandhi but it is just not, the day of rest is what is said by the wsc.
The God of the Muslims would not agree with this as well, along with the Jewish God, this is because; the Muslim god is one that pulls from Christian and Jewish teaching. The God of the Jewish people is the same God as the ones that the Christians worship. So with this being said it is very disturbing coming from someone who says they worship the one true God.
“In the opening chapter of the book of Genesis, the Creation story is wonderfully told. Many have delighted in its peculiar rhythm of “God said…” and then—voila!—it was so. But that divine rhythm in the epic Creation poem points out a helpful pattern that has sustained humans for countless generations. At each step of the Creation story, God the Creator steps back, slows down, reflects on the enormity and beauty of what is unfolding, evolving, and pauses to appreciate the moment. And each time God pauses in the Creation story, after each day of Creation, God gives a wondrous affirmation, “And it was good…And it was good…,” then finally, “Behold, it was very good.”  Really this shows that God is slowing down? Steve come on give me a break, the theological inferences in that statement is that God changed something about himself, that the God that is the same today and tomorrow has not changed, “Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.[3]” the very view you giving is heresy in part that your saying God is changing, and this view is dispensationalism. The God you give lip service to is one that is not going to change what he does.  When it was that God says it was very good? After what he had made that it was good?  Well let’s look at the verse saying it was very good. “Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.[4]” so it was after everything he made before he said it was very good, but the one thing that need to see is was not very good until man was made, God in his own will could have said it was very good after all of the steps he took to make this world. So were you get that God has slowed down Is something that is heresy and the worst and just foolish theology and the lest. So with your idea that God has slowed down is just so far out there that it makes rob bell or his group look somewhat better than they are, and they are outright heretics. But let’s look at it deeper is it really matter when he says it is good? Well yea it does the theological implications of what you’re saying  is that nothing matters of the context or of the history of the books, the context is shown then you think that  Gandhi has any place in this type of talk. He has none, and I really don’t think you know anything about what it was that Gandhi thought and wanted and about the brake of Hinduism and Buddhism, I don’t think you know anything about the two views with in Buddhism.
Context means everything to someone who cares about the word of God and wants to keep it whole, and you just show time after time that you could care less about the word of God and more about people liking you. Sir, no one at first that I know of liked you. But with you playing fast and loose with the bible makes you not care about the context. So look at the context and try again.
“So on my Sabbath days, and in my Sabbath moments, I leave the suburbs of Chicago behind and go out to the cornfields of DeKalb, or up the shoreline of Lake Michigan or beyond, to explore the endless green garden called Wisconsin. Around nearly every bend of two lane black top I can find, there is always another delight awaiting: a field, a meadow, a stream, or just the sight of a father scooping up a kid and playing with his child. Somehow, it never gets old. It never fails to refresh my spirit or speak to my soul. If you slow down, ease off the gas a bit, the beauties of the creation are not hard to find.”
Sir, you don’t get to choose when you want the Sabbath day, it is Sunday for the Christian, and is that why after you lack of a sermon on the book you read of a lost person, you were nowhere to be found, unless if you wanted to yell at someone for something that is not there job, i.e. me when you wanted me to do the job of the ushers in the balcony, sir it is not my job to keep the younger kids under control, and God would not have blessed me for doing it because my works are nothing to him! is that why you ran off so you did not have to do YOUR JOB AS A PASTOR? You carried more about your bike then you did the people of the church. So back to your Sabbath, when did God give you the right to say that you got that power to say when it is? Where is the text to back it? And don’t give it in the English but the Greek, if you can even read the Greek. So again the idea that it is your Sabbath is one that you should be falling to your knees and repenting for! You should not be riding your bike on the Sabbath because you should be resting!  “and in my Sabbath moments,” what is this? I would like to hear the biblical text backing that the Sabbath is not just moments.
“Almost everyone knows this. Not everyone practices it. The classic James Taylor song, “Up on a Roof,” pays homage to Sabbath or at least the Sabbath idea. “On the roof it’s peaceful as can be. And I don’t let nobody bother me…” We need a place where we can be still, a place where we can remember and reflect on who we are and on whose we are. To dare to believe in the post-modern world that we as humans are the ones, as male and female, who are made in the image of God, is still a breathtaking proposition. It is still a revolutionary thought. Surely it secures once, for all, forever, our individual dignity and worth, which no one can ever touch or bother. And to then act on this idea by following the divine rhythm, the divine pattern of slowing down, being still, seeking out green pastures or sitting beside still waters, or just going up on the roof of a tenement, allows us to open our souls to God our Creator who can speak, God our Redeemer, who does speak.” To start what does James Taylor have to do with the bible? Let me tell you because you might not know the answer nothing not one thing, he has nothing to do with it. The Sabbath and a Sabbath idea, are not the same, in fact they are so different that it is like me trying to say that fumet and Foie gras are the same thing when they are not even close. To have this idea of a Sabbath if not like you have a Sabbath so Steve I would start using the bible if you even remember what that is.
“I love the creation story in Genesis, chapter 1, because it suggests that God the Creator is still creating, still “hovers” above God’s good creation. It says, “In the beginning the Spirit of God hovered above the darkness and the deep that was formless and empty.” The remarkable Hebrew verb “to hover” is found only a few other times in Hebrew Scripture. In Deuteronomy, God is like “an eagle that stirs up her nest and hovers over her young, that spreads her wings to catch them and carries them aloft” [Deuteronomy 32:11]. It is a maternal image of a mother eagle, which hovers over her brood. God hovers over the Creation. Later God says to the Hebrew people, “You yourselves have seen what I did, how I carried you on eagles’ wings…” [Exodus 19:4].” This is one of the only parts that you did anything close to biblical exegeses but still somewhat off.
I want to take some time to go over my exercise with him as a pastor or if you wish to call him one I don’t.  but he at one point told the church body that he had a cell phone but he would not give it out, now what is it that we was thinking why did he not want to give it out? Well I know because his bike was more important than the Lord’s church. His time alone away from the people that we was “called” to look after he had no care for, he had no care for the youth in the church along with no care for the kids of the church, he stopped the children’s sermon he did not want to have a Sunday school for the 18 and up groups not until you were in your mid-40s and up was there something for you. As I said about how he yelled at me for something I had no control over, one that is something that your usher needs to handle, and then you need to talk with the father of that kid as it is his job in the house to give out the discipline.
But the thing that I think was one of the worst things on his list of what you doing is that he ever visited people who were in the hospital nor did he know who was in the hospital. His whole Job is to care for the sheep in his church and that does not stop when he was done talking on Sunday, in fact that job is a 24-7 job and he thought it was a when I want to have that job, then again he does chose when his Sabbath is so why not when he wants to be a “pastor” and he did not want fellowship of the body outside of the church, there is a camp out every year and he would come to it for 20-30 mins make others cook his food manly me, and then go just disappear. I know that the church he is at now wants his gone, and the only thing about this whole thing is that he did not put me to sleep like he all ways does. One question I have for him is how many takes did it take for you to look like less of a fool to one who knows the word of God and knows your back round at first umc Lombard?
I hope that this brings light in to what it is that many pastors are doing even the small time ones. I plain on email the link of this blog to his new church, as well as to the ds of the umc.


God bless,
The sheep of God and to the sound teaching of his word.
Soli Deo Gloria
RCM
Charlie Brenan  


[1] English slandered version E.S.V. 
[2] Westminster Shorter Catechism WSC 
[3] E.S.V

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism) and Covenant Theology by jonathan Williams


Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism) and Covenant Theology


Infant Baptism and Covenant Theology:

1. The Old Testament church and the New Testament church are in essence the same church.
2. God includes the children of believers as members of the visible church.
3. In the Old Testament, the children of believers, by virtue of being covenant members, were given the covenant sign of circumcision.
4. In the New Testament, God substituted circumcision for baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant.
5. Therefore, children of believers, because they are covenant members, are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.
1. The way of salvation (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3-13) and the Saviour (Romans 3:20-26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6) are the same for people before and after Christ.  Before Christ, people were saved by looking forward to Christ and what He would do. Today, people are saved by looking back to Christ and what He did (Hebrews 10:1-4). Both are under the same covenant (Galatians 3:27-29), members of the same body (Ephesians 2:11-19) and branches in the same olive tree (Romans 11:17-26) - unbelieving Jews were cut off, Gentile branches were grafted in.
As the Old Testament and New Testament churches are in essence the same church, their titles are interchanged: Old Testament Israel is called ‘the church’: [‘Church’ [Greek: ecclesia] = ‘congregation’ [Hebrew: qahal] (Psalm 22:22, Hebrews 2:12)]. Israel at Sinai is called "the church/congregation in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). The New Testament church is called Israel (Galatians 6:16), and terms used for Old Testament Israel are used for the New Testament church (1 Peter 2:9). God’s New Testament people are represented as a nation (Hosea 2:23, Romans 9:25-26, 2 Corinthians 6:16).
2. God included the children of believers in His covenant of grace – an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:7). God nowhere overturned the inclusion of the children of believers in the covenant: without such we cannot exclude them from the covenant. As the children of believers were covenant members, those who oppose infant baptism must prove that they were thrown out. Conversely, the New Testament affirms the covenant membership of the children of believers. Acts 2:39 “For the promise is to you and you children”. Peter was talking to Jews (people fluent in Old Testament); if their children were no longer covenant members, Peter certainly used the wrong words. The promise is the promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8, 14) – the Abrahamic covenant is only referred to in the singular.
Paul when writing "to the saints who are at Ephesus", in Ephesians 6:1 addressed the children of believers, recognising them as church members. Paul said the children of believers are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14); ‘hagios’ is a covenantal word meaning to be ‘set apart’ to God (Romans 11:16, 1 Corinthians 3:17, Ephesians 2:21, 5:27, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Paul proclaims that the law did not nullify the promise given to Abraham (Genesis 17), rather the promise “to you and you children” still holds (Romans 4:13-18, Galatians 3:13-18).
3. Children of believers received circumcision in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:10-12): a rite with spiritual significance (Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 9:25-26, Romans 2:26-29).
4. Baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of entrance into the covenant. In the Old Testament, a proselyte and their household received circumcision as the sign of initiation into the covenant. In Matthew 28:19, Christ commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations – but baptise, not circumcise them. The spiritual meaning of baptism (Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38) and circumcision are the same. Circumcision symbolised regeneration (Deuteronomy 30:6), conversion, repentance and faith (Jeremiah 4:4). In the Old Testament, a true Jew was not an outward Jew, but a person who had the inward reality (Romans 2:28-19, Philippians 3:3) – a person who was justified by faith (Romans 4:11).
God substituted circumcision for baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant – the two share the same basic meaning – which explains why they are used interchangeably. In Colossians 2:11-12, we are said to have received the ‘circumcision of Christ’ ‘having been buried with Him in baptism’. Christ’s circumcision, which is the circumcision of the heart, signified by circumcision in the flesh, was accomplished by that which baptism signifies (Galatians 3:27-29).
5. Baptism is to the New Testament, what circumcision was to the Old Testament. Because the children of believers are covenant members they are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.
The main objections to infant baptism are:
1. “There is not an explicit example of or command for infant baptism in the New Testament”. The refutation is that the burden is on them to show that the children of believers were thrown out of the covenant. Also, there is no example of or command for women participating in the Lord’s Supper either: does this mean they cannot?  Conversely, the New Testament speaks of the ‘covenantal’ baptism of whole households (Acts 16:15, 33, 1 Corinthians 1:16), upon the profession of faith of one parent. Lastly, there is not one example of the Baptist practise of a person growing up in a Christian home, then being baptised after years of proving themself to be a Christian.
2. “Faith comes before baptism, infants cannot have faith, therefore infants should not be baptised”. That objection could be rearranged to say “People cannot be saved without faith, ‘infants cannot have faith’, therefore infants cannot be saved”, which is clearly unbiblical (Psalm 22:9, Luke 1:41).  Also, their argument makes faith depend on human ability, rather than God’s grace: both infants and adults cannot believe of themselves (John 1:12-13). They are correct that an unbaptised adult must profess faith before being baptised, but they are incorrect to extend this thinking to children. This Baptist objection would be equally applicable against infant circumcision. If we apply this Baptist objection to 2 Thessalonians 2:10 we would have “Only those who work may eat, infants cannot work, therefore infants cannot eat.”
“Baptism is to the New Testament, what circumcision was to the Old Testament. Because the children of believers are covenant members they are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.”
(C), J. Williams, December 2011.

Monday, September 26, 2011

blog of the month.


Blog of the month
      Ok, guys and girls I am going to try something new, I will be every month posting about a blog of a brother or sister in the lord, I am doing this because I think that when we as bloggers blog about other blogs of are kind in good will of the ones doing it. It will bring more people to both blogs, and this in the end lord willing brings the word of truth and the gospel to more people.
      So the first one is from a bother by the name of Evan Wheeler, he blogs under Unleashing Truth.  There is a little about Evan.
                “From a child I've been brought up in church. I went to the altar at 12 years of age at our church Christmas play, professed faith and then lived a wicked, God hating life. Around 3 years ago God actually regenerated me and caused me to seek after Him. I was saved as an ignorant Arminian but after hearing about TULIP, searching everywhere in the Scriptures, I submitted to what the Bible teaches. Man is a wicked, repugnant sinner in the eyes of God and his only hope is for God to draw him and save him perfectly. This is the love of Christ, not that we loved Him or sought after Him but that we ran away from Him and He brought us to Him. My passion is teaching theology, apologetics and evangelism. I am hoping to eventually become a full time evangelist with the help of other brothers and sisters in Christ supporting my ministry. I am grasping for every opportunity to glorify God in my life through YouTube videos, blogs, open air preaching and evangelism. I pray that God will bless my ministry.”
                His blog, has post on many different things in the reformed camp sum, of the most read ones are, everything for a Purpose, The Politically Correct Gospel, The Confusion of Salvation: Free Will and Collateral Damage. He is a brother I have had the honor to talk with for hours on the study of theology, he and I have had some grate talks and also have been there to give the gospel to those who were in need. I first meet Evan on paltalk, were we both have done a lot of apologetic work, I am honored to know him and to be able to do this blog on him. He is a grate brother in the lord and I hope that all of you that read his blog get some good thing out of it, and hope that the lord will use not only my blog but his and many other brothers, for his glory and honor.

I would like to leave this with a line from the Westminster shorter catechism.
  WSC Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.



http://unleashingthetruth.blogspot.com/

Religious literacy Stephen Prothero




this is a review of a speech given by Stephen prothero 
The different knowledge in the areas of the country, on the religious texts of the world, at Boston University, many students could not name the first book of the Pentateuch and did not know the first book of the new testament, and that they could not name man of what the bible was talking about, like Adam and eve, and what happened in genesis 3 with the fall of man.  not only did he see this with the protestants but all so with the roman catholic ones as well with them not being able to name the 7 Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance or Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, Marriage.  The thing is that any catholic should be able to name them, and he also say that the Jewish students did not know that genesis was the start of the Torah. With this we see that one, the church is not doing their job, and two that the parents were not doing their job in teaching the word of God in the home.
            The numbers that he had found were very scary. in the fact in 1967, there was a study that was done, on if Americans knew the ten commandments, and it should that the answers were yes and no. and in different finds he found that many did not know that Christ was the one that gave the sermon on the mound, they had thought it was Billy graham, and many also thought that and Sodom and Gomorrah were a happily married. But in fact they were cities that were destroyed by God in genesis. He also found that many roman Catholics could not tell what the Eucharist was and if it was the real body and blood of Christ, or if it was the imaged of the body and blood of Christ. The thing that I found the sadist was that many Protestants could not name that Dr. Martin Luther was the one that on 31 October 1517, gave the church in Wittenberg, that he was the one that started the grate movement that was keep going by mean like John Calvin and many others.
            In the history part he talks about, how Americans forgot about Religion, not because of the two court cases in the sperm court. But in fact with the ones that were Religious. This he said was because, how we learned to read was from the bible, because we would read the bible and learn to read it with the bible, thus being the bible was the book used to teach people how to read. We see this because now we use many other books to teach this. In this he brings up the pertain movement, and how they were more focused on the head and the heart. But we then move on to a movement that was more about the felling of man and just the loving of God was more than enough and that we did not need to know what the bible teachers and this is because the one that lead this movement was a man by the name of Charles finny, and he was the one that said that it was all in the heart and that was because what he was teaching was that man was not sinful but they were perfect, we also see that with in the talks about the history of the land that we live we see that there was a big fight about slavery and in this they could go to the bible and point out what they said about in the bible, and we see that like, with the year of jubilee in the bible, we here did not have that, and the year of jubilee was that after seven years all the slaves were set free and also anyone who owed anyone money was forgiven of the money that was to be paid. So we see that with this we have something’s that we now cannot sit and talk about because, we don’t know the bible and what it says about many things.
With the end of the video, he gives his input on what we can do to fix this. and I would say that it is good, and he brings up a point that why should we know what the others teach in their books. Well the thing is there is a reason and I think that my idea of why is the same but also very different then his. He is saying that we should because then it would help us know what others thing and I would say this is true but also, we need to know what the other texts say, because we need to be able as Christians or anyone be able to defined what we hold to. Also that we need to know what it is that they do and what they teach, so that we can point out were they are wrong and also that the students can know what the fails are in the other places. But that might sound like it goes agents the courts but if we teach it as how he says we should then my second point will work out its self. So we have the fact being no matter what we as a whole do not know anything or nothing about what it is that the country was to be made on. From the bible we have what we got now. That we have only from about the second grate awaking; have gone away from the teaching of the world texts. That is because of the second grate awaking. 
            He brings up talking to others, about what we hold to and that is a good idea, but as he puts out they might not know that what they in fact talk about. He brings up Matthew, and genesis being a short cliff note read. But I would say that Matthew would not be a good one because it is from the synoptic, I would say that we would be better off reading all three synoptic gospels plus john. By this we can, get the whole work of the gospels.