Husband and Wives as Christ and the Church

I was doing dishes this evening and I was simply musing on something, and I figured I would put it up on here for consideration. I would especially ask for a few wives ( maybe even my own) to comment.

In Ephesians 5, Paul likens the Husband and Wife to Christ and the church, and says that wives are to submit to their husband's as they submit to The Lord. Now in general if Jesus were to ask you to do something, and you were to fail to do it (ie, the 3 and prayer on the Mt. of Olives) it would be sin. My thought was, does this follow with the husband wife relationship or is Paul simply saying that this is the seriousness with with you are submit to your husband.

So ladies, If you husband asks you to clean the house, make dinner, have sex, whatever, is it in your mind that you are to submit to him as to Jesus. Do you think you are to submit to the request as if Jesus was asking?

As a note, I have no conclusion, or statement either way, I am not looking for my wife to do something, but I am posing a serious theological question.

Who is the Real Fundimentalist

I have been busy over at Tony Jones' Blog. They posed a question about being 'intersexed' and I have been responding to one person specifically, Panthera.

I am going to post the conversation that has being occurring between He (?) and I, the goal of this is to see who the real fundimentalist is within this conversation.

panthera:

dustin germain my marriage is legitimate. What you and your hateful version of Christianity thinks is totally irrelevant.

For what it's worth, my opinion is very simply put:

You should love the person who loves you. Build a committed, monogamous, loving, faithful and true marriage. Who cares what your chromosomal status or your sexuality is, marriage is strictly between two people and not determined by hateful conservative Christians.

Regardless of how often they rape, torture, beat and kill us.

Me:

Panthera~

I don't know what your story is, or frankly anything about who you are, and I'm not trying put on a pretense of judgment towards you, however, I think that for the Christian, the word of God must be our Authority for Truth. There are so many experiences, philosophies, sects, cults, and religious persons that I believe that to submit to any of them outside of scripture is folly.In Short, We must have an Arbiter of truth that is external from us.

That said I am a conservative Christian. I have never Raped, Tortured, Beat or Killed anyone and being as I don't even know who you are I clearly don't hate you. That said, I am, because of my belief in Sola Scriptura, against any and all forms of marriage that are not given to be valid covenantally by the Word of God (see Gen. 1-2, Matthew 19). I am forced by my love for scripture and the God of Scripture to say that out side of God instituting a covenant, persons in committed, monogamous,loving, lifelong relationships are still fornicating, an act described as sin by both the New and Old Testaments.

Is it possible for you to see that perhaps persons who take the view that I have just outlined are not hate-mongers, but rather are people who lovingly desire for you to not come under condemnation from God Almighty?

panthera:

Of course it is possible for me, Ken.

I find it sad that you needs must imprison God by limiting Him to your interpretation of the Bible. And that is what you do.

Calling my marriage fornication is absurd. Do you really think I would abandon my husband just to satisfy your mumbo-jumbo?

Not going to happen.

There is little charity amongst you fundamentalist Christians, little indeed if you can call a faithful partnership of 25 years a sin.

Oh, and, yes, I am a Christian. You can be a Christian and gay. Even a Christian and gay and married.

Me:

panthera -

I would like to systematically address your response.

1. I think that it is completely irrational and unreasonable to say that I am imprisoning God. If the text explains God, then holding to that isn't an imprisonment, but rather a representation. This type of language serves more to Poison the Well, rather then to make a rational argument.

2. I am not calling your marriage fornication, I am saying that I do not believe that you can support from scripture same-sex marriage, being covenantally begun by God. I would also note that Dee Bradshaw a pastor in the MCC in his debate with Dr. James White said that he could not do so.

3. Do I really think you would abandon your husband just to satisfy my "mumbo-jumbo?" No, I don't. I don't think in fact if Jesus came down and told you that he did not approve of your actions that you would abandon your 'husband.' I hope that you understand that I mean that in the kindest was possible.

4. To say that there is little charity amongst fundamentalists may or may not be true, however, I am not a fundamentalist, which is frankly a derogatory term, that has no place in civil discussion. Notice that no where in what I have said did I Directly say that what you are doing is a sin. That is your conclusion from the logical case I am forwarding, but I did not use the word Sin.

5. I think that we must submit to 1 John as to what a Christian, I don't Judge you.

panthera:

Ken, you wrote, I answered. I won't get into the hysterical fundamentalist/conservative/literalistic/bible-as-God's-only-message discussion with you.

Calling a fundamentalist a fundamentalist is no more an insult than it was after church Sunday when a local farmer came up to me and said his b i t c h was in heat and did I think my dawg might spend the week with his family, 'cause he knows what to do with his nose.

That man would die for his pretty little dog, they're that close. But he still calls her by what she is.

Tony, I see little hope of any mercy from these people for anyone whom they consider 'other'.

Me:

Panthera ~

The clear issue is that I am not a Fundamentalist. As a matter of fact based on the definition of the term, by Richard Dowkins, You are more of a fundamentalist then I am. "Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence."

The clear fact is that you, in our brief encounter, have done exactly this. Thus we must conclude that You are the Fundamentalist not I.

panthera:

Ken,
And Richard Dawkin's opinion is relevant because...?

I simply don't care how you self-identify. I have no interest in the mumbo-jumbo you practice in your version of Christianity in your church.

All I care about is that you cease attacking my status as a human and stop blocking my civil rights, including the right to have my marriage legally recognized in the US.

That is the difference between us - I am more than happy to leave you and your hatefilled ilk be. You recognize neither my status as Christian nor human, demanding I bend to your perverted, hatefilled will.

Ain't gonna happen.

I will die before I surrender to you and your nasty fellow travelers.

Me:

Panthera ~

Can you please show me, and everyone else reading this where exactly I have said you are "not-Human" in any interaction here.

I find it funny that you refuse to do anything but cry victim, as if I have dehumanized you, degraded you, or treated you at all poorly. When in fact I have done none of these things. I understand that you have no doubt been mistreated previously, which I openly condemn. I am simply trying to have a rational discussion with you about in issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it amazing that 1. I am not a nasty, hate-monger, anti-gay, dehumanizing, fundamentalist. However, looking at the more modern definition given by Richard Dawkins, I am asking:

Who is the Real Fundamentalist??

You be the Judge.

Tony Jones and Gay Marriage, Video Blog

I have started to read Tony Jones Blog. If you are unaware of whom Tony Jones is, I would suggest you google the man, but as a short description it would follow (from Zondervan) -

Tony Jones is the National Coordinator of Emergent Village (www.emergentvillage.org), a network of innovative, missional Christians. He's also a doctoral fellow and senior research fellow in practical theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Tony has written several books on philosophy, theology, ministry, and prayer, including Postmodern Youth Ministry and The Sacred Way. He's a sought-after speaker on the topics of theology and the emerging church. Tony lives in Minnesota with his wife, Julie, and their three young children.

Now Tony describes his stance on the issue of homosexuality as follows -

I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

So what we have is yet another 'christian leader' who believes that Scripture does not condemn homosexual activity as unnatural, improper or unrighteous. Now I say this with the understanding, that I am assuming that Tony believes and subscribes to Sola Scriptura. However, I do not dismiss the idea that Tony could reject Sola Scriptura, Consider the conclusion of an article from Emergent Village titled So Long Sola?, "We should welcome challenges to the doctrine of Sola scriptura. What was a pillar of truth half a millennium ago, has become an untenable deadweight (one is tempted to say, an idol) in the life of the church." It is possible, given the content given to us from other emergents, that Tony subscribes to an emergent form of finding truth, which would involve Scripture, reason, tradition, experience, creation, intuition, and imagination.


Now that there is a bit of introduction about Tony Jones. I would like to respond to a challenge that Tony Issued on his blog about homosexuality and gay marriage, with the first ever video blog from Thoughts of a Christian.

Modern Worship Music

Has anyone noticed the trend in modern "Worship" music, that it has been abandoning more and more the solid theological perspectives of the past, and instead become something that is highly emotional in nature? I have some strong criticisms of these song, some of which are very popular, and I also have some strong praise for songs that are going against the grain of this trend. When I am speaking about a song, I am in no way addressing the Artist who wrote the song, in terms of there theological views nor am I questioning there faith or confession. I am addressing the lyrics as prayer, and I am doing so from a theological perspective. Thus, my basic question will be: Does this song line up with the Word of God?

Admittedly, there are some songs that could be criticized, that I will not be addressing, at this point, but please feel free to give songs for review. It is my belief that Song Writers should for the Brothers Wesley in their model of reviewing perspective songs. Above all we must not forget that these songs are meant to be worship to the Most High God, and as such, we are in a sense praying with or via the lyrics. Our singing of these words is our stamp of approval. That Said the first song I will address is, Above All -- by Michael W. Smith.

Above all powers above all kings
Above all nature and all created things
Above all wisdom and all the ways of man
You were here before the world began

Above all kingdoms above all thrones
Above all wonders the world has ever known
Above all wealth and treasures of the earth
There's no way to measure what You're worth

Crucified laid behind a stone
You lived to die rejected and alone
Like a rose trampled on the ground
You took the fall and thought of me
Above all

This is a very popular song, that is sung in churches around the US. The problem with the song is that it is theologically inaccurate and in doing so, it exalts man above God. The song's structure is essentially one that lists all the things that Jesus is above, this is accurate. However, when the chorus comes, we get into trouble.

The phrase 'you took the fall and thought of me/ above all' is problematic for 2 reasons. First, there is no biblical evidence to believe or assert that Jesus Christ thought of you or me during the last part of his life. Second, to say that this unbiblical thinking of us was "above all" would by the textual usage of the term all in the song include the Father, and Holy Spirit, thus denying the Trinity, and committing blaspheme.

Some would say that I am being to critical here. However, it is clear that these songs teach theology, and people repeat these statements in churches all around the nation. Theological error begets other errors.

Landmarkism - More Theological Terms

I will be honest with you, and say that I had not heard of this (cult like) idea until I purchased two dictionary's of theological terms.. but I have learned that seemingly nothing good came out of the 1800's in American Theology...

A theological movement originating in Tennessee in the Mid-nineteenth century, holding that only Baptist Churches are true churches, that baptism is only valid when administered by a Baptist Congregation and that communion is to be restricted to the members of a particular congregation, for there is no such thing as the universal church. Landmarkism also hold that there is an uninterrupted line of succession of true Baptists, linking the present-day congregations with Jesus and the apostles. In order to show this, Landmarkist historians seek to reinstate many in the past whom the church at large considered heretics, and whose views are now reinterpreted in order to bring them in line with Baptist teachings.[From Essential Theological Terms, Justo Gonzalez].


So what we have is a group of Baptists, who now Join the ranks of The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches to have Succession (Though they call it church succession, as opposed to Apostolic succession) . But they also take on the classic American Cult Mantra --- Unless you are one of US you can't be saved. (Jehovah's Witness', Mormons, perhaps even SDA's fall into this [not all of them mind you] All American, all abhorrent).

Well that is your Term of the Day. Enjoy!

Ceder Mills Bible Church - Statement of Faith

One thing I enjoy doing when I go to other churches is looking at the statements of faith. Yesterday I was at Ceder Mill Bible Church. So I picked up their statement of faith, read through it... thought this is pretty Good. I will give two example directly from the Statement of Faith, one good and one questionable.

We Believe in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as inspired of God and inerrant in the original writing, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life. (II Timothy 3:15-17; II Peter 1:21)

This is a Good example of a clear statement. It gets the the point, it is supported by Scripture and it oozes confidence. Well done.

This next example is from the same Church.

We Believe that man was created in the image of God, that he sinned and thereby incurred not only physical death, but also spiritual death which is separation from God; and that all human beings are born with sinful natures, and in the case of those who reach moral responsibility, become sinners in thought, word and deed. (Genesis 1:26,27; Psalms 14:1-3; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10-19; Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 John 3:8)

There is a lot to unpack here. I would put into the 5 statements I see.

1. We are made in the image of God
2. Adam sinned and Earned Physical and Spiritual Death
3. Spiritual Death is separation from God.
4. All men are Born with a sin nature.
5. We only become sinners once we reach 'moral responsibility.'

First, I want to say that the wording of this is somewhat unclear. It isn't simple, like there other statements. It lacks the clarity of the previous statement. In fact, when showing this statement to two pastors they both said they were unclear on the exact meaning, and timing of said moral responsibility.
Second, this is my major point of contention. I believe that they have failed to provide any clear reference from scripture to support statement 5. Not that I think it is wrong, per se, but I think it is unsupported. Perhaps the addition of a scripture like James 4:17 and 1 John 3:4 could clear up what sin is and when it is committed. I see No biblical warrant for statement 5. Sin is Breaking the Law of God at any age.


I think that if they support there statement that this could be a very good statement of faith.

A response to Sargon

I was looking around on a Mormon Apologetics discussion board and found this post, and saw fit to respond to it.

Mainstream Evangelical Christians believe that no man, including Joseph Smith of course, can view the face of God and live. This belief is based mainly off of one verse in the OT, and a few choice proof-texts in the NT. Rather than engage those specific verses at this time, I wish to point out another facet of the discussion.

LDS often quote OT passages which unambiguously say that certain OT prophets viewed the face of God and survive. To reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages, Evangelicals such as Mr. Slick of CARM have devised a way interpret these OT passages through the lens of the NT.

Mr. Slick of CARM tries to explain the discrepancy this way:

QUOTE

Second, though they are most definitely are occurrences of God being seen in the Old Testament, these are not manifestations of the Father. They are the appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

Mr. Slick then continues to list a few places in the OT where God is said to have been seen. However, Mr. Slick offers no further explanation for why his view is justified, other than mentioning that the NT text prohibits God the Father from ever being seen by man. What I wish to point out is an obvious double standard being used by critics of the LDS church.

Mr. Slick, and others, contend that the apparent contradictions in the OT involving theophanies can be properly understood if we use chronologically later revelation and scripture to interpret it. A short afternoon spent in the CARM chat-room with a poster named Neolights reveals that it is an acceptable and common practice used by Evangelical Christians. Mr. Neo assured me that it was perfectly permissible to interpret the OT texts through the lens of the NT. It was also candidly admitted that the OT writers did not have that advantage.

I of course have no qualms with that methodology, in fact I believe it! What irks me however is the double standard. While Evangelical Christians can use later revelation, the NT, to interpret older revelation, the OT, Mormons apparently are not given that privilege. Mr. Slick from CARM and his associates use NT scriptures which they believe teach the Trinity, and interpret the theophany passages in the OT with them. They interpret the passages by suggesting that it is Jesus, not the Father, who is seen in these passages. The immediate context of these passage gives absolutely no hints of this perspective, and the OT authors certainly had no such idea in mind.

Mormons also have the privilege of interpreting both the OT and the NT texts through the lens of modern revelation, whether or not Evangelicals like it. We understand the passages a bit differently then our Evangelical brethren, but our methodology is the same. We use scripture to interpret scripture. Evangelicals need not believe that our scripture is inspired and true in order to understand this right that we share.

We reserve the right to interpret Biblical statements about who can or can't see God by the information provided to us in modern revelation and scripture.

The argument made from OT texts by Evangelicals which suggests that God’s face cannot be seen by virtue of NT passages cannot be upheld without employing a hypocritical double standard, one which has been and should continue to be exposed.

Sargon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I for the most part understand where Sargon is Coming From. He says that Mormons have the same right to understand previous revelations with more current revelation. In principle I understand where he is coming from, because he is correct in that we do the same thing as Christians. However, Christians practice a little thing called "hermeneutics." This is the art and science of biblical interpretation. We, as a rule reconcile, all verses so that there is not a contradiction within the revealed Word of God. Mormons, however, do not do this. Mormons look at the most modern revelation, and then use previous texts to support that revelation and discard any text that does not agree with the modern revelation. Mormons Do not use hermeneutics. Remember that Mormons don't even truly believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, they state that they believe the bible so long as it is correctly translated. So I would suggest asking our Mormon Friends what verses in the bible are incorrect?

Let me sight some examples of this -

James 1:5 - If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.

Now a Mormon would look at this and say that Joseph Smith prayed to God, as one who was seeking for truth and asked which church he should join.

As a Christian, I see several problems with this. 1) The context of the Book of James - v.2 tells us that it is to the believers, Those who are saved. Was Joseph Smith saved when he was asking God for Wisdom? I Would argue that he wasn't. He makes no statement of faith, no confession or statement of regeneration. 2) Rom 3:11 says that no one seeks for God. So how is it that Joseph Smith was seeking for God?

So the idea that God answered Joseph because of his plea for wisdom is out of the picture, because the verse doesn't apply to him.

This is the same thing that Christians do to both orthodox beliefs and to Mormon beliefs, Check the doctrine against the bible, and see if it checks out, does it contradict any bible verses?

The Goal here is to strive for correctness. And to be honest, I don't see Mormons doing this with the bible.

God's Purpose for Family

He (God) established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God. (Psalms 78:5-8).

This was something from the devotional book Courtney and I read together, and at first I disliked the exegesis of the passage and as time has gone on, it has started to make more sense. So, this passage is something that I believe should be seen as at least part of God's plan in family. Remember that God is a Jealous God who visits the iniquity of the father to the third and fourth generation (Ex. 20:5) at least until Ezekiel (chp. 18) became a prophet. So how does this psalm apply to us, if each man is credited his own works and not the works of his father? Simply stated it teaches us the importance of raising up our Children in the Lord. Six times in the book of Proverbs, that a father should not spare the Rod from his son; reason are things like so he will grow in wisdom, and not bring shame to his mother. We must teach our children discipline, this is clear.
Notice what the Psalmist is saying here, that we teach the law of God to our children so that they will not be like there fathers, stubborn and rebellious, but so that they will have a heart that is faithful to God. Also, there is a phrase in there that is worth bringing out, "so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God." We teach our children the not only the law of God, but we are to tell him the great things he has done, for us in the past. Anyone who has read the OT, (Kings and Chronicles specifically) can see that what a father did for his son, had a great effect on how he ruled the nation. Whether or not he was wicked in the sight of God depended on his memory of what God had done for his forefathers.
This seems logical, in that, if a man doesn't know about God's love for him, he certainly won't love God ( 1 John 4:19). I guess the point is that if our Children are not taught wisdom, are not taught and modeled the love of Christ, are not taught the laws of God, what else can we expect from them other then to wallow in their own depravity?

Joel Olsteen On Larry King Live - Dec 26th

I feel that perhaps my criticism of Joel can be at times a bit harsh, and one sided. I think Joel says some good things; they are just few and far between.

So I will objectively ( as possible) point out the pro's and con's from his interview on Dec. 26th on Larry King Live. This is from cnn.com


KING: Could an atheist be changed?

J. OSTEEN: I think so. I think...

KING: Without having to believe in God?

J. OSTEEN: Well, I think there's a void in every person that only God can fill -- that only God can fill. I think that's how you can really be fulfilled, truly. So I would think an atheist can be changed and their attitude in certain things. But I think if you come to a belief that there's something bigger than yourself, you're going to be more fulfilled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My issue here is : that of course a person can be changed by the Word of God. But the Bible was not written to give you a better attitude, it was written so that we might be able to bring Glory to God, understand His character and nature, and so that we might receive Salvation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING: How do you react to the critics who call your message theology lite?

J. OSTEEN: Well, I've heard that before. It's interesting, Larry, every week in our services we deal with people that are -- have children that have cancer, people that have a husband or a wife that left them. We deal with the real issues of life. I talk about forgiveness and how to have faith when bad things happen and, you know, how to overcome and, you know, love your enemies and things like that.

So when they say it's gospel lite, I think, you know, we're helping people where the rubber meets the road.

I mean last Sunday, there was a little girl there. She was 2- years-old. She has cancer. She's at our MD Anderson Cancer Hospital.

And you know what?

We give them hope. We pray for them. We say God's going to give you strength. I mean we don't know exactly what the outcome is going to be. We hope they -- we hope she'll live.

But, you know, how can that be gospel lite to me?

That's why I come back to saying I'm helping people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is SALVATION? honestly, this may sound harsh or even mean, but who cares about cancer in light of ETERNAL HELL?

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
(Mat 5:29-30)

Does this make any sense? It is great to help people on earth, but it they don't have Jesus Christ as an atonement for their SINS it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING: What's your notion of hell?

J. OSTEEN: Well, I believe hell is a real place. I think it's -- you know, the scripture talks about it's separation from God. And I think -- I believe if God as light and love and everything good, then hell's going to be everything bad. I mean we certainly do not want to go there and I don't think hell was designed for people.

KING: You think there's life after death?

J. OSTEEN: I do. I believe we're all going to live on, that we're a spirit. This body -- I like to think of it as just like my coat. There's something on the inside of me that's making this thing move. And I'm -- the real me is on the inside. So I do believe we'll live on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Job Joel! While I don't agree with him on every word here, I love that he said hell is a real place and that people will go there. (that was implied). There is a heaven and a hell. Good Work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING: Do you minister to the poor?

J. OSTEEN: Oh, we do. We do.

We have outreaches in our church. We support local outreaches as well. I mean, that's what the gospel is all about, helping others that are less fortunate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No sir, it's not. The Gospel is about Christ dying for the sin's we have committed so that we might be reconciled to God. Our treatment of the poor is simply a reflection of the gift that Christ has given to us. The Gospel is about Salvation, and bringing Glory to God for being so MERCIFUL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING: What's your reaction, though, when God gets a bad name? There has been more people killed by religion than any other thing.

J. OSTEEN: It's been going on for centuries. Well, it's just like you said, God gets a bad name, and there are -- I think there are extremists in any group.

And, you know, we're not for that. We're for loving our enemies and helping people. But, you know, I -- you can fault anything. But a lot of times, it's extremists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad premise's lead to bad conclusions.

Hitler and Stalin combined killed more people then any other group somewhere in the 30 million range, but that seems a little low.

Even so, Christianity has very little as far as deaths are concerned. The inquisition. The Crusades which was more of a Iraq I style war then anything it was about freeing people...

So really the issue here is that this is a fallacious attack that is repeatedly made on Christianity and should be answered once and for all and shown to be false.

Atheism is responsible for more deaths then anything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joel has some good and some bad, but I think we need to pray that God Almighty would teach him the truth of the Gospel.

What Makes Christians Unique?

Have you ever considered the question, what makes Christians different or unique from non-Christians? I heard it posed today and in my desire to respond I figured that it would be prudent to write it here. When considering the question there is one thing that jumps out at me before anything else, and that is rebirth. Human nature is abundantly sinful, we are enemies of the things of God and our hearts are desperately wicked (Isa 64:6 and Romans 5:10). This is not true of Christians. We have been reborn, remade, reformed into something that doesn't look anything like what one used to be. However that does not become immediately obvious.

Another thing that is not always apparent but I think is a clear mark of Christians is that God dwells in them. This is often difficult to measure, as we must look for the fruit of the spirit in someone's life. However, when doing this one must also distinguish Godly fruit from righteous ( in human terms) actions. This is the difference between a Christian serving the needy and a Buddhist serving the needy. They are equal in human terms but far different in heavenly terms.
Christians also have a far different perspective, then non-Christians. Most Christians ( true Christians, not cultural or pretend christians) perspective is that all there actions are purposed for the glory of God. That is there end and all that they do is working towards that end. Non-Christians have a far different end, self. Their end is self-serving. They are enemies of God and lovers of self.

Here is another one for you, and a will warn you that there is theological content in this paragraph, so if you can't handle that... (ok, I was trying to be funny and witty here, but i think i sounded like more of a jerk.) Christians are unique because in there life they are not trying to be "good people" [ whatever that is as no one is good as we are guilty of breaking the commandments of God] but they are trying to follow the Four Commands of Christ. Quick can you name them? Well, i will supply them for you, because i am just that nice.

1. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Matthew 22:37
   
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39
   
3. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. - John 15:12
4. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20

So How did you do? Christians strive to follow these commands, it shows that they are really Christians and that they really love Christ ( The person who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I, too, will love him and reveal myself to him. - John 14:21). This is something that is unique to Christians, keep in mind that non-Christians, are enemies of God.

I think that something else that Christians can do that other people can't do is logically defend there belief system and holy text. Honestly, I would challenge someone, anyone to find a factual error that can not be attributed you scribal error ( there are about 50 known scribal errors in our modern bible, which for an ancient document is amazing). This is far from true for a group like Muslims and the Qur' an. This is even true for such recent books like the Mormon scriptures, (aka book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham) which have far more errors and outright changes in them compared to there originals which are less then two hundred years old, in comparison to the Law of Moses which is about 3,000 years old.

Anyways, I have been writing this entry for quite a while, three weeks or so, quite contemplatively and wish to continue as it strikes me, but want to at least put this out there for consideration.

Paul Washer

Paul Washer is a missionary and preacher. This video is a clip of a sermon that he preached, and I put it up here simply because it is the most powerful thing I have ever heard on the topic of Salvation and what it means to be a Christian. Many people think that they are Christians, and Paul tears this concept to pieces. So many people in America claim to be Christians and the question is, is that true? Frankly, I don't think so. I hope that you are blessed and strengthened by this message. Please, listen to what Paul says, it is a simple gospel message, but i know that i have never heard it preached like this, If you have any doubt about being a Christian, listen to this message.

For those who are keeping score, I think Paul Washer is either the best or second best preacher in the United States today, the other being John Piper. Thanks be to God for men like this who can so deeply affect us.

The Trinity and Hypostatic Union

Same deal as the essay on Salvation.

The Trinity and The Hypostatic Union (Brief intro on heresy)

The doctrine of the trinity is perhaps one of the most basic and misunderstood doctrines in the Christian church today. I believe it to be this way, because it is so complex. One reason for this is that the word trinity never appears in scripture. However, despite the lack of the term being used I am confident that after seeing what scripture says about God Almighty that no other view can be taken. The second topic that we will be covering today is the Hypostatic Union. This is a critical doctrine of Christ Jesus our Lord that we must understand, not for salvation, but to understand Christ’s roll right now. We will begin with the Trinity; can anyone define what it is? Can you show any Scripture that shows this?

The Trinity is best defined as the doctrine of God that states that He is one, yet has three distinct members, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, and the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. They are not three Gods as that would be polytheism (meaning many Gods) and they are not three beings.

Let’s briefly examine how many Gods exist in the bible. The verses we will examine are Isaiah 43:10, 44:6.8, 45:5,14,18,21-22, 46:9, 47:8. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6-8 Deuteronomy 32:9. There is clearly one God. We must accept this, scripture is clear. However scripture discusses three persons as God. John 1:1-2,14 (Jesus); Philippians 1:2 (Father) Acts 5:3-4 (Holy Spirit). There are examples like this where God is shown to be more than one person, and we cannot forget that He is one God.

From Rev. Matt Slick, Brief intro to heresy. - The word "heresy" comes from the Greek hairesis which means "choosing," or "faction." At first, the term heresy did not carry the negative meaning it does now. But, as the early church grew in its scope and influence throughout the Mediterranean area, various teachers proposed controversial ideas about Christ, God, salvation, and other biblical themes. It became necessary for the church to determine what was and was not true according to the Bible. For example, Arius of Alexandar (320 AD) taught that Jesus was a creation. Was this true? Was this important? Other errors arose. […] Out of necessity, the church was forced to deal with these heresies by proclaiming orthodoxy. And in so doing, condemnation upon these heresies and the heretics became a reality.

There are several heresies related to the trinity. We well briefly look over a couple of them. The first and most common heresy that exists in the church today is called Modalism. A modalist would state that God is one person, who has displayed himself in three ways in different times throughout history. When discussing God with a modalist I have used one passage over and over again. I will read the section to you and ask that you pick out why you think this shows Modalism as a heresy. (Matthew 3:13 ff and Acts 7:55.) - Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Mat 3:13-17) Today the main groups of people who subscribe to this view point are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. The foremost preacher who holds to this view is T.D. Jakes, who is Oneness Pentecostal.

The next major heresy I want to address briefly is Tritheism. According to this heresy that was started in the 11^th century by Roscelin (a Catholic Monk), there are three beings in the Godhead which comprise three Gods. The logic behind Roscelin’s thinking was that if there was only one God, both the Father and the Holy Spirit would have become incarnate with Christ. What verses would you quote to someone who held this belief? (see above proof for the Trinity). The modern group that holds to a heresy like this one is Mormonism. A Mormon would state that there are many Gods in the universe, but that they only worship one (the Father), but that Christ and the Holy Spirit are also God’s. We will be spending a fair amount of time on Mormonism as it is the most wide spread of all the Christian Cults.

One major question that exists is why is Jesus, so often, called the ‘son’ of God. There are several possible answers but I believe the best one lies in the concepts of incarnation and authority, as best understood by our next topic the hypostatic union.

I would like to start off by saying that this is perhaps one of my favorite doctrines of Christianity. It is wonderful and confusing all at the same time. If you ask perhaps ten people if they could tell you what the hypostatic union was, I am confident that only one if any could. However, this is a doctrine that helps us understand the nature of the incarnation, Christ becoming human, and how, by extension, He is seated on his throne right now. The doctrine of the hypostatic union states that Christ Jesus was born to Mary fully man and fully God; He as two natures, human and divine. It is not that he is half man and half God but that He is fully both. The how is a divine mystery, but the proof that it is true is in the text. So let’s dive into the Word of God.

Is Jesus Christ God? What are some things that we only do for God? (Worship, Pray) God is all-knowing, and gives us eternal life. We see that these are the characteristics of Christ. In Matthew 2:2-11 and 14:33, that Christ is worshiped. In the book of Acts 7:59 we see Steven praying to Christ. According to John 21:17, Christ knows all things; and in John 10:28 we see that he gives eternal life. If that is not enough we can see in Colossians 2:9, that in Him all deity dwells and John 1:1-2,14 says that He is God. I believe that we can say with absolute confidence that Jesus Christ is God. The question then remains was he human? Paul said he was, Romans 5:6-17, we see he Died, which God cannot, and he is repeatedly called a man. He had a physical body both before and after the resurrection, Luke 24:39. Now for the real puzzler, he grew in wisdom according to Luke 2:52.

Adults: Where is Jesus Christ right now? Is he alive physically? There is one main reason the Jesus Christ must be a man right now, in Heaven. And that reason is to hold the Priesthood. Right now Christ is still incarnate in the hypostatic union (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 2:9). Also it is imperative that we hold that Christ is the High Priest right now, as if He did not, we would have no one to intercede for us. Hebrews 6:19-7:28.

Like the Trinity, there are heresies about the nature of Christ. Briefly I would like to look over them. First I would like to look at Apollinarianism. This heresy basically taught that the Logos (Greek for Word) of God came down and after birth replaced the soul of the Man Jesus. So it was deity indwelling a man. The major issue with this heresy is that it puts the nature of the atonement in peril. This is a common theme in all heresies involving the humanity or divinity of Christ. If Christ was not fully God then he was not pure and holy and therefore could not have be a suitable sacrifice. However, if Christ was not a man, he could not have died for men. We see the absolute need for both forms.

The second heresy which is perhaps more common today is that of Arianism. Arius taught that Jesus was the first created being and that it was by him that the world was created. He held that because of the glory of being the first creation of God and the authority given to him by God, Christ deserved to be worshipped, and treated as God. For Arius, at the incarnation, Christ took both the physical and spiritual aspects of Jesus. This heresy is again often refuted the same way that Apollinarianism was, but with the added kick of recognizing that worshipping anything created is idolatry. This heresy denies the full nature of the incarnation, and the eternal coequality of the Father, Son and Spirit, and thus attacks both the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. Today two major groups that hold to forms of this heresy are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In the fifth century AD there was a church counsel held to discuss the trinity, and to combat the errors that had crept into the body of believers. This creed was written by Athanasius, the fourth century bishop of Alexandria. (Catholic in this context simply means universal or believer, and does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church)

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.