As most of you have heard by now Pope Francis has, in so many words, recognized the Palestinian Authority to be a viable state entity (the first World leader to do so) among the international community. He further informed the world that the chairman of that state Mahmoud Abbas was an "angel of peace". With warm affection gifts were exchanged. We were informed that this man, who worshiped Yasser Arafat his mentor and the one whom Abbas succeeded in leadership was not merely a man of peace (he's not), but the leader of 1.2 billion followers declared him to be an "angel" of peace. By the way, if true, he's got the wrong angel.
Honestly, Looney Tunes comes to mind - Daffy Duck lives and has taken over the international community. Think of the entrance music to the Barnum and Bailey circus - Comical in the midst of constant tragedy. When looking at our world condition today and the "leaders" shaping those conditions, one must conclude that we have amongst us children trapped in adult bodies. These are the sophisticates of the world; the ones calling evil good and good evil and who are substituting darkness for light and light for darkness (Is. 5:20). These are the ones who are calling Islam the religion of peace and are tripping all over their feet to proclaim that the violence currently being generated by such as Boko Haram, Al Queda, Hamas, ISIS, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. is a deflection from true Islam - that religion of peace.
Do not think that I am declaring these men and women to be uneducated, uninformed, and unsophisticated in the natural realm. They are indeed mature in their ability to obfuscate and confuse. It is in the spiritual realm that they are children - buffoons actually. We as Christians have pretty much lost the information-flow in this world. We have been called-out of such (John 15:18-22), but in the midst of the unfolding of world events we are required to proclaim and live out the demands and liberty of the Gospel of Christ.
Licentiousness is what the world wants - a license to sin and to not be held accountable. And it seems that they are doing quite well in their efforts. So, should we wring our hands. Well, no actually. I have been sharing with those who come across my path this thought: When frustration in the midst of this world circus seriously discourages you, let that frustration drive you into the bosom of Christ (John 15:4, 5).
One day at a time beloved, one day at a time. Time is on our side and all will be revealed.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Haaretz is not America
Please understand that what is to follow is not blasphemy. For several years now I feel as though I have been intellectually stuck with a pin every time I hear the misuse of what has become an icon of American Christianity, namely, the misuse of that magnificent conditional offer that God made to Solomon and "His people" national Israel.
If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (II Chron. 7:13-14)
Now, please, don't deflect from what is to follow by shutting down your thinking process because you think that the subject-matter is national Israel. That is a topic for a later time. God is promising to the people who posses God's "house of sacrifice" (v. 12) that when under conditions of (severe) distress God will heal their land. Under conditions of humility, hunger for God, and repentance God will heal. Zech. 12-14 comes to mind, especially 12:10.
Now, let's fast forward approximately 3000 years to today and consider how that wonderful promise is applied by the American church of today. We can all agree that, even though it is the opinion of this writer that God was promising Israel this blessing of healing, He was also offering an eternal blessing to all who are called by His name who humble themselves, seek His face, and repent of their sins. Thus it follows in the minds of many American Christians that if we do so God is going to heal America. "If only, if only..." Fill in the blanks. Every time that I hear that phraseology, I feel that I have been pocked in the eye with the proverbial stick.
If only we will all get out and vote...we will heal America,
If only the Church will...we will heal America,
If only we would all pray...we would heal America,
If only, if only...
Pointed sticks abound.
Beloved, the Church is not going to heal America. "If only" is not going to happen. Does that sound blasphemous to you. Please - read the Book. The second coming of "the Lamb standing as if slain" (Rev. 5:6) is going to heal America. So, do I feel that the Church should shut down and wait for the Second Coming? No, It is not my intent that the Church should shut down. On the contrary we are priests in His Kingdom. It is our function to hear and subsequently to obey. The Church is not going to heal the World, neither is it going to heal America. The remnant of His Church who are in the process of praying to Him for healing, who are humbling themselves, seeking and repenting will constantly be bringing healing to both America and the World, but we will not ultimately accomplish the finality of that impossible task.
The godless of this world will continue to do that which is godless and will eventually win the day in the natural world. In the duration of the unwinding of human history the ekklesia of Christ will be healing the sick, be saving babies in the womb, see mothers repent and come to Christ, vote and bring better governance to our land, expose sin in the land, offer sanctuary for the weak and cast out, preach the light of the Gospel and welcome in the saved who will become part of the redeemed of the Lord, and so much more.
So, why is this even important? Can we not at least agree to the possibility that in our professing of this great promise of God that we have created one of our many anesthetizing beliefs? We proclaim a Scripture as in II Chronicles 7:14 and subliminally believe that by our proclamation of such a Scripture that the living-out of that Scripture is actually occurring. We have numbed ourselves. We ignore that our nation is not humbling itself, repenting, seeking and praying. The man-made church is not humbling itself, repenting, seeking and praying. The remnant is not even sufficiently humbling, repenting, seeking and praying - at least not to the degree that God is going to heal America. He is bringing healing to America, but He is not going to heal America.
Should we as God's called-out and redeemed elect be living out II Chronicles 7:14? My yes, and that with much gusto! Especially as we see the day drawing near should we pursue such. To whatever degree that God is well pleased with the integrity of our efforts, not only will He bring healing, but He will also, with equal and even greater gusto, cause the calling-out of the Saints unto the final ingathering of His beloved elect. For those of us who perceive the seriousness of the moment let's pursue humility, repentance, the seeking of His face and with vigorous and constant prayer loose God to bear the fruit that He deems appropriate for this time in history. This is the calling-out of the Church, not the healing of America.
"The Land" is not America -
"Haaretz" in not the Ekklesia.
If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (II Chron. 7:13-14)
Now, please, don't deflect from what is to follow by shutting down your thinking process because you think that the subject-matter is national Israel. That is a topic for a later time. God is promising to the people who posses God's "house of sacrifice" (v. 12) that when under conditions of (severe) distress God will heal their land. Under conditions of humility, hunger for God, and repentance God will heal. Zech. 12-14 comes to mind, especially 12:10.
Now, let's fast forward approximately 3000 years to today and consider how that wonderful promise is applied by the American church of today. We can all agree that, even though it is the opinion of this writer that God was promising Israel this blessing of healing, He was also offering an eternal blessing to all who are called by His name who humble themselves, seek His face, and repent of their sins. Thus it follows in the minds of many American Christians that if we do so God is going to heal America. "If only, if only..." Fill in the blanks. Every time that I hear that phraseology, I feel that I have been pocked in the eye with the proverbial stick.
If only we will all get out and vote...we will heal America,
If only the Church will...we will heal America,
If only we would all pray...we would heal America,
If only, if only...
Pointed sticks abound.
Beloved, the Church is not going to heal America. "If only" is not going to happen. Does that sound blasphemous to you. Please - read the Book. The second coming of "the Lamb standing as if slain" (Rev. 5:6) is going to heal America. So, do I feel that the Church should shut down and wait for the Second Coming? No, It is not my intent that the Church should shut down. On the contrary we are priests in His Kingdom. It is our function to hear and subsequently to obey. The Church is not going to heal the World, neither is it going to heal America. The remnant of His Church who are in the process of praying to Him for healing, who are humbling themselves, seeking and repenting will constantly be bringing healing to both America and the World, but we will not ultimately accomplish the finality of that impossible task.
The godless of this world will continue to do that which is godless and will eventually win the day in the natural world. In the duration of the unwinding of human history the ekklesia of Christ will be healing the sick, be saving babies in the womb, see mothers repent and come to Christ, vote and bring better governance to our land, expose sin in the land, offer sanctuary for the weak and cast out, preach the light of the Gospel and welcome in the saved who will become part of the redeemed of the Lord, and so much more.
So, why is this even important? Can we not at least agree to the possibility that in our professing of this great promise of God that we have created one of our many anesthetizing beliefs? We proclaim a Scripture as in II Chronicles 7:14 and subliminally believe that by our proclamation of such a Scripture that the living-out of that Scripture is actually occurring. We have numbed ourselves. We ignore that our nation is not humbling itself, repenting, seeking and praying. The man-made church is not humbling itself, repenting, seeking and praying. The remnant is not even sufficiently humbling, repenting, seeking and praying - at least not to the degree that God is going to heal America. He is bringing healing to America, but He is not going to heal America.
Should we as God's called-out and redeemed elect be living out II Chronicles 7:14? My yes, and that with much gusto! Especially as we see the day drawing near should we pursue such. To whatever degree that God is well pleased with the integrity of our efforts, not only will He bring healing, but He will also, with equal and even greater gusto, cause the calling-out of the Saints unto the final ingathering of His beloved elect. For those of us who perceive the seriousness of the moment let's pursue humility, repentance, the seeking of His face and with vigorous and constant prayer loose God to bear the fruit that He deems appropriate for this time in history. This is the calling-out of the Church, not the healing of America.
"The Land" is not America -
"Haaretz" in not the Ekklesia.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
More Calvin
The following critique may seem to be a bit tedious to some of you, but bear with me as I attempt to extract a (hopefully) reasonable defense of a much-maligned and mocked word. That word would be chiliasm. Rather than proactively defending the concept of a literal one thousand year reign of Christ (Rev. 20:4-7) - a task later to be addressed on this site - I have chosen to respond to Calvin's vigorous denial of same (Institutes, 3,25,5).
One can imagine the mind-set of the Reformers in those early days. What must it be like to be on fire for one's beliefs, knowing that those beliefs proclaim light in the midst of much religious darkness and that eternal lives are at stake? How much more sobering must it have been to understand that proclaiming that light is resulting in the death of many of your contemporaries? Calvin's response to the contemporary surroundings were with vigor and not always kind.
In defense of the resurrection of the saints he addresses chiliasm in this manner:
But Satan has not only befuddled men's senses to make them bury with the corpses the memory of resurrection; he has also attempted to corrupt this part of the doctrine with various falsifications that he might at length destroy it....But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error, does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth. On the contrary, all Scripture proclaims that there will be no end to the blessedness of the elect or the punishment of the wicked (Matt. 25:41, 46).
Now all those matters which elude our gaze and far exceed the capacity of our minds must either be believed as from actual oracles of God or utterly cast away. Those who assign the children of God a thousand years in which to enjoy the inheritance of the life to come do not realize how much reproach they are casting upon Christ and his Kingdom. For if they do not put on immortality, then Christ himself, to whose glory they shall be transformed, has not been received into undying glory (I Cor. 15:13 ff.)
If their blessedness is to have an end, then Christ's Kingdom, one whose firmness it depends, is but temporary. In short, either such persons are utterly ignorant of everything divine or they are trying by a devious malice to bring to naught all the grace of God and power of Christ, the fulfillment of which is realized only when sin is blotted out, death swallowed up, and everlasting life fully restored! (Bold added)
Perhaps it would be advantageous to drop the word chiliasm at this time. Some baggage appends to that title and rightfully so. It seems that Calvin's disgust is pointed to the universalists' claim that all men will eventually be saved and that the chiliasm of his day suggests that Christ's glory is limited to that literal one thousand years (and thus that somehow the belief in resurrection is questioned?). Consider reading between the lines and footnotes of his thoughts as recorded in the Institutes, 3, 25, 5.
For our ruminations in the day in which we now live, let's replace the baggage of chiliasm with the claims that Rev. 20 should be taken literally, futuristically and as part of the glory and universal reign of Christ that will immediately usher in the eternal glory of chapters 21 and 22. For all of us who are serious concerning such matters, why don't we all sit down and have coffee with Calvin? I have some questions that I would like to ask us all.
How does one determine that those who believe that Christ will literally reign for a thousand years "limit" that reign? Do not those who believe such a literal understanding of the passage (Rev. 20:4) also believe in the continuing glory of Christ to be immediately found in the following chapters (Rev. 20,21)? I plead ignorance here. If the subject matter is dealt with, it is not dealt with in the entire passage alluded to above (Westminster Press, vol. 2, pp.994-6).
Calvin has determined that Rev. 20:4 alludes to the "various disturbances that await the church, while still toiling on earth". Though I disagree with this assessment, I understand it to be a reasonable (although incorrect) position; one held by intelligent, thinking men and women of integrity before God and one that is worthy of discussion.
Now, when the claim that the "oracles of God are cast away" by those who claim a literal thousand year reign of Christ, one can reasonably retort by claiming that the oracle of God as recorded by John indeed uttered-forth literally that Christ would reign for 1000 years (20:4-7). Further, it should be a continuous thought that chapters 20 and 21, also being oracles of God, shout-out the continuing glory of the Lamb of God throughout eternity.
One can readily understand Calvin's distain for the chiliastic position since, in his mind, that position blunts the understanding of resurrection and possibly proclaims a universalist claim of reconciliation of all of mankind. The man was a warrior in the midst of incredible evil and spiritual darkness. My intent here is to address those of you who's belief system is akin to that of that great Reformer. Chiliasm, with all of its baggage is not the subject matter, rather, I appeal to you that you address the formal claims of the pre-millennial and literal understanding of the final three chapters of the book of Revelation.
Finally, here is the question: To those of us who so believe; do you subliminally, or overtly, believe that we are really believing in "childless fiction, casting away the oracles of God and are casting reproach upon Christ"? Such a mind-set seems to blunt Christian dialogue for us all, don't you think?
Let's close with this thought. It has been said that "Covenant Theology isn't so much a 'theology' in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture." Now here is a problem for all Christian belief systems, namely, that so many of us are guilty to some extent of forcing our hermeneutical tendencies to distort our "exegetical" conclusions. To what degree does an a-millennial mind-set force an eisegetical conclusion upon a literal and declarative biblical statement? Remember, we are having coffee here. Let's all put our eschatological and theological ping-pong paddles away. Calvin gets a pass because he was fighting a war against tyranny. We should not be given that same pass.
Let's have coffee - There's a freight train coming.
One can imagine the mind-set of the Reformers in those early days. What must it be like to be on fire for one's beliefs, knowing that those beliefs proclaim light in the midst of much religious darkness and that eternal lives are at stake? How much more sobering must it have been to understand that proclaiming that light is resulting in the death of many of your contemporaries? Calvin's response to the contemporary surroundings were with vigor and not always kind.
In defense of the resurrection of the saints he addresses chiliasm in this manner:
But Satan has not only befuddled men's senses to make them bury with the corpses the memory of resurrection; he has also attempted to corrupt this part of the doctrine with various falsifications that he might at length destroy it....But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error, does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth. On the contrary, all Scripture proclaims that there will be no end to the blessedness of the elect or the punishment of the wicked (Matt. 25:41, 46).
Now all those matters which elude our gaze and far exceed the capacity of our minds must either be believed as from actual oracles of God or utterly cast away. Those who assign the children of God a thousand years in which to enjoy the inheritance of the life to come do not realize how much reproach they are casting upon Christ and his Kingdom. For if they do not put on immortality, then Christ himself, to whose glory they shall be transformed, has not been received into undying glory (I Cor. 15:13 ff.)
If their blessedness is to have an end, then Christ's Kingdom, one whose firmness it depends, is but temporary. In short, either such persons are utterly ignorant of everything divine or they are trying by a devious malice to bring to naught all the grace of God and power of Christ, the fulfillment of which is realized only when sin is blotted out, death swallowed up, and everlasting life fully restored! (Bold added)
Perhaps it would be advantageous to drop the word chiliasm at this time. Some baggage appends to that title and rightfully so. It seems that Calvin's disgust is pointed to the universalists' claim that all men will eventually be saved and that the chiliasm of his day suggests that Christ's glory is limited to that literal one thousand years (and thus that somehow the belief in resurrection is questioned?). Consider reading between the lines and footnotes of his thoughts as recorded in the Institutes, 3, 25, 5.
For our ruminations in the day in which we now live, let's replace the baggage of chiliasm with the claims that Rev. 20 should be taken literally, futuristically and as part of the glory and universal reign of Christ that will immediately usher in the eternal glory of chapters 21 and 22. For all of us who are serious concerning such matters, why don't we all sit down and have coffee with Calvin? I have some questions that I would like to ask us all.
How does one determine that those who believe that Christ will literally reign for a thousand years "limit" that reign? Do not those who believe such a literal understanding of the passage (Rev. 20:4) also believe in the continuing glory of Christ to be immediately found in the following chapters (Rev. 20,21)? I plead ignorance here. If the subject matter is dealt with, it is not dealt with in the entire passage alluded to above (Westminster Press, vol. 2, pp.994-6).
Calvin has determined that Rev. 20:4 alludes to the "various disturbances that await the church, while still toiling on earth". Though I disagree with this assessment, I understand it to be a reasonable (although incorrect) position; one held by intelligent, thinking men and women of integrity before God and one that is worthy of discussion.
Now, when the claim that the "oracles of God are cast away" by those who claim a literal thousand year reign of Christ, one can reasonably retort by claiming that the oracle of God as recorded by John indeed uttered-forth literally that Christ would reign for 1000 years (20:4-7). Further, it should be a continuous thought that chapters 20 and 21, also being oracles of God, shout-out the continuing glory of the Lamb of God throughout eternity.
One can readily understand Calvin's distain for the chiliastic position since, in his mind, that position blunts the understanding of resurrection and possibly proclaims a universalist claim of reconciliation of all of mankind. The man was a warrior in the midst of incredible evil and spiritual darkness. My intent here is to address those of you who's belief system is akin to that of that great Reformer. Chiliasm, with all of its baggage is not the subject matter, rather, I appeal to you that you address the formal claims of the pre-millennial and literal understanding of the final three chapters of the book of Revelation.
Finally, here is the question: To those of us who so believe; do you subliminally, or overtly, believe that we are really believing in "childless fiction, casting away the oracles of God and are casting reproach upon Christ"? Such a mind-set seems to blunt Christian dialogue for us all, don't you think?
Let's close with this thought. It has been said that "Covenant Theology isn't so much a 'theology' in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture." Now here is a problem for all Christian belief systems, namely, that so many of us are guilty to some extent of forcing our hermeneutical tendencies to distort our "exegetical" conclusions. To what degree does an a-millennial mind-set force an eisegetical conclusion upon a literal and declarative biblical statement? Remember, we are having coffee here. Let's all put our eschatological and theological ping-pong paddles away. Calvin gets a pass because he was fighting a war against tyranny. We should not be given that same pass.
Let's have coffee - There's a freight train coming.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Exploring Calvin
Let me begin by pleading relative ignorance concerning the belief system held by most Christians who hold to the teachings of the covenant community. How much more ignorance, then, might I be burdened under upon probing the inner-mind of this most powerful man who spun off such a powerful community of believers who proclaim such a belief system. But probe I must. A long journey, it seems, awaits me.
It is not the absolutism of the Calvinistic system that causes me to pause and possibly disagree. TULIP? Fine, live with it. I suppose that if one were to ponder that the God of the entire universe could create the first hydrogen atom, and all that followed such an effort, could certainly be the cause of all things following. This would include election and all that that implies (including free will at the same time? Let God be God).
It is not the theology of the Reformed/Covenantal community that has caused me to pause and to begin a disciplined exegetical pursuit of various truth claims, rather, it is the a-millennial tendency of many in that community who eschatologically supplant a literal and futuristic understanding of prophetic utterances with an allegorical-like interpretation of those utterances that has caused me to pause. Usually it is a straw-dummy in the form of Dispensationalism that has been the standard by which they judge. Straw dummies are easily knocked over. BTW, I am not a Dispensationalist!
The Divine Utters Forth - The Amanuensis Records!
When one utters forth a series of declarative predictions as do many of the prophets in both testaments, should not the burden of proof be on those who declare such statements to be allegory, types and metaphors, rather than on those who declare them to be literal statements? I understand that many allegories, types and metaphors abound within such writings. Sometimes it seems as though the Book of Revelation was designed to break one's heart. But, to declare that the New Covenant has replaced the Old (which it certainly has) does not necessarily translate to the emasculation of the prophetic writings of the Old. Much damage has been, and is being, committed to our understanding of how current events are affecting our lives at the present time. This is not a small matter; there really is a freight train coming and some of us need to sit down over coffee and talk a little.
Or so it seems to me. More, much more, to come on this subject.
It is not the absolutism of the Calvinistic system that causes me to pause and possibly disagree. TULIP? Fine, live with it. I suppose that if one were to ponder that the God of the entire universe could create the first hydrogen atom, and all that followed such an effort, could certainly be the cause of all things following. This would include election and all that that implies (including free will at the same time? Let God be God).
It is not the theology of the Reformed/Covenantal community that has caused me to pause and to begin a disciplined exegetical pursuit of various truth claims, rather, it is the a-millennial tendency of many in that community who eschatologically supplant a literal and futuristic understanding of prophetic utterances with an allegorical-like interpretation of those utterances that has caused me to pause. Usually it is a straw-dummy in the form of Dispensationalism that has been the standard by which they judge. Straw dummies are easily knocked over. BTW, I am not a Dispensationalist!
The Divine Utters Forth - The Amanuensis Records!
When one utters forth a series of declarative predictions as do many of the prophets in both testaments, should not the burden of proof be on those who declare such statements to be allegory, types and metaphors, rather than on those who declare them to be literal statements? I understand that many allegories, types and metaphors abound within such writings. Sometimes it seems as though the Book of Revelation was designed to break one's heart. But, to declare that the New Covenant has replaced the Old (which it certainly has) does not necessarily translate to the emasculation of the prophetic writings of the Old. Much damage has been, and is being, committed to our understanding of how current events are affecting our lives at the present time. This is not a small matter; there really is a freight train coming and some of us need to sit down over coffee and talk a little.
Or so it seems to me. More, much more, to come on this subject.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Erasmus Concerning Luther
I was recently researching the life of Erasmus and ran across this quote:
Concerning his chastisement of Luther - and undoubtedly put off by the notion of there being 'no pure interpretation of Scripture anywhere but in Wittenberg' - Erasmus touches upon another important point of controversy:
'You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture.' (bold added)
Upon reading the above in a Wikipedia article re. the person of Erasmus, two thoughts came immediately to my mind: First of all, I considered the substance of the thought that implied that Luther was so polarized and myopic in his thought process that such a statement could be addressed to him (i.e., being a lord and not a steward), and secondly, I immediately transferred Erasmus's implied chastening to the day in which we live. Could not this insight be addressed to many proactive advocates of biblical "truth" in the current man-made church of today.
Erasmus continued: I detest dissension because it goes both against the teachings of Christ and against a secret inclination of nature. I doubt that either side in the dispute can be suppressed without grave loss. (again bold added)
We in the Western church seem to be an arrogant group, or so it seems to me. It is not the intent of this article to address the veracity of either man's belief system; neither is it the intent to critique any belief system at this time. Arrogance is the gorilla in the middle of the living room of the American church that is the subject-matter being addressed here.
I understand that I "speak" in generalities, but it seems to me that severe damage (grave loss) is being transferred to the called-out elect and family of Christ. We intellectually speak and write in support of unity, but experientially we are nourishing a subliminal mind-set that tends toward a cult-like superiority that seems to blunt unity and sharpen separation within His family.
To those of us who look upon the possibility that an eschatological testing (the taking of a mark and all that leads up to it) is soon to be thrust upon the Western church, it seems that our psychological make-up needs to be examined. We have been warned about a great apostasy occurring at that time. This implies a separation between those polarized toward a position of arrogance and those polarized toward unity (and affection) toward fellow believers including those who disagree with us on the non-essential belief systems of our faith. Are we stewards, or lords of Holy Scripture?
Arrogance - thy name is King James Only, thy name is Preterist, thy name is
Faith (name it/claim it), thy name is Dispensationalism, thy name is Charismatic, thy name is anti-Charismatic, thy name is ________ (fill in the blank), and etc., etc., etc.
It is not one's position that disunites, it is one's arrogance. Let's stop being so brilliant. Your brother or sister in Christ is more important than your brilliance. Family trumps our individual observances and declarations.
The King is coming; let's act like it!
Concerning his chastisement of Luther - and undoubtedly put off by the notion of there being 'no pure interpretation of Scripture anywhere but in Wittenberg' - Erasmus touches upon another important point of controversy:
'You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture.' (bold added)
Upon reading the above in a Wikipedia article re. the person of Erasmus, two thoughts came immediately to my mind: First of all, I considered the substance of the thought that implied that Luther was so polarized and myopic in his thought process that such a statement could be addressed to him (i.e., being a lord and not a steward), and secondly, I immediately transferred Erasmus's implied chastening to the day in which we live. Could not this insight be addressed to many proactive advocates of biblical "truth" in the current man-made church of today.
Erasmus continued: I detest dissension because it goes both against the teachings of Christ and against a secret inclination of nature. I doubt that either side in the dispute can be suppressed without grave loss. (again bold added)
We in the Western church seem to be an arrogant group, or so it seems to me. It is not the intent of this article to address the veracity of either man's belief system; neither is it the intent to critique any belief system at this time. Arrogance is the gorilla in the middle of the living room of the American church that is the subject-matter being addressed here.
I understand that I "speak" in generalities, but it seems to me that severe damage (grave loss) is being transferred to the called-out elect and family of Christ. We intellectually speak and write in support of unity, but experientially we are nourishing a subliminal mind-set that tends toward a cult-like superiority that seems to blunt unity and sharpen separation within His family.
To those of us who look upon the possibility that an eschatological testing (the taking of a mark and all that leads up to it) is soon to be thrust upon the Western church, it seems that our psychological make-up needs to be examined. We have been warned about a great apostasy occurring at that time. This implies a separation between those polarized toward a position of arrogance and those polarized toward unity (and affection) toward fellow believers including those who disagree with us on the non-essential belief systems of our faith. Are we stewards, or lords of Holy Scripture?
Arrogance - thy name is King James Only, thy name is Preterist, thy name is
Faith (name it/claim it), thy name is Dispensationalism, thy name is Charismatic, thy name is anti-Charismatic, thy name is ________ (fill in the blank), and etc., etc., etc.
It is not one's position that disunites, it is one's arrogance. Let's stop being so brilliant. Your brother or sister in Christ is more important than your brilliance. Family trumps our individual observances and declarations.
The King is coming; let's act like it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
