New Broadway Musical: The Book of Mormon

Dinesh D’Souza’s periodical blog is often a subject inspierer for me.  This time I couldn’t find anything to add, and so I’m simply posting a link to this excellent article for you all to read.  Be enlightened and edified!

http://www.tothesource.org/4_28_2011/4_28_2011.htm.

Come To Jesus!

A very short post today!  I want to share this video from Len Sweet, someone I listen to a lot, whose books I read, and now whose videos have also become very important to me.  Just Click on the Link Below, then watch and listen, and learn!

Come To Jesus from The Work Of The People on Vimeo.

The Benefit of Doubt: Believers Confront Faith & Fact

Doubt forces us to examine what we believe about God—and this can be unsettling. What we thought was our “faith in God” sometimes winds up being little more than faith in ourselves—our own ability to grasp God, to possess him our way, to have him figured out.

The bulk of this post comes to us from Pete Enns of the BioLogos Forum, a current conversation between the facts of science and the truth of biblical revelation.  Yes, I hear the objections rising already: “I just want to believe what the Bible says, not figure it out scientifically, and anyway, how can science and biblical theology have a genuine conversation when the likes of Richard Dawkins keep publishing inflammatory books calling Christians stupid, mindless robots?”  Indeed, Dr. Dawkins and his ilk (I just really like using that word) do not add anything of real significance to the issue.  My suspicion is that they, and others like them on the opposite side of the debate, escalate the controversy primarily in order to sell books and make money for themselves.  But the fact that there are detractors from the debate does not indicate that the debate is not genuine.  Although we are accustomed to life in a “sound-bite” world, where matters are decided on the latest poll and the most publicized “gotcha,” there are those among us who, however painful it may be, desire genuine conversation and debate as a means of getting to the truth of the issues.  One primary issue we all must deal with before we enter this conversation is the nature and benefit of doubt, and that is the subject of this well-rounded post.

Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.

————————————–

No one I know likes to be in a state of doubt. Doubt is destabilizing and we do whatever we can to avoid it. This is all the more true when it comes to matters of faith. Doubt and faith rule each other out. It is one or the other. And if you are in a state of doubt, your job is to get rid of it.

Doubt is an assault on faith. We know this because doubts lead to such destructive emotions as fear, depression, anger, irritability, and stress.

Clearly, God does not want us to doubt. Right?

Wrong.

There is a benefit of doubt. Doubt is a gift of God to move us from trusting ourselves to trusting him.

Doubt forces us to examine what we believe about God—and this can be unsettling. What we thought was our “faith in God” sometimes winds up being little more than faith in ourselves—our own ability to grasp God, to possess him our way, to have him figured out.

Doubt is God’s way of tearing down the private fantasy we have constructed about him—where what we think about God is without further need of reflection, no longer open to growth. Doubt does not mean that God is “dying” for us. Doubt signals that we are beginning to die to ourselves, and that can be very painful—dying usually is.

How Can We Know?

John’s Letter and Christians’ Attitudes Toward Sin

The Problem

Exegesis

Heb. 10

When I was a young believer, I was troubled over why I was still struggling with a recurring sin.  So I asked an older Christian about it, and he told me it simply meant that I was not a true Christian.  You might imagine I found this answer less than satisfactory.  When I asked him for some biblical proof of this, he pointed me to 1 John 3:6:

"But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." 1John 1:5 God's ultimate goal in discipleship is to present us as wholly restored to the condition we were in originally, before sin entered the picture. Click Here to view a graphic lecture entitled "What Is Man?" about our original creation and the effects of sin, and subsequently, salvation on our Spirit, Soul & Flesh.

“No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.”

I was devastated! And the confusion and pain didn’t go away quickly.  I needed to have some help to understand this passage and the arbitrary and hurtful meaning that had been attached to it by that well-meaning older believer.  Thank God he sent another more mature Christian to set me straight—and to help me understand what John is really trying to say in this passage.  Still, though, we need to know that there’s not an “easy answer” to the difficulty this passage, and others like it for that matter, present.  It takes a little deeper look into the history, the context and style of writing, the original language, and then also, a long look at what the whole rest of scripture has to say on this subject.  So, let’s begin by looking at the passage in its larger context:

⁴ Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. ⁵ You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. ⁶ No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. ⁷ Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. ⁸ Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. ⁹ Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.     1John 3:4-9

This is what is known as a problem passage.  It is problematic because it seems to contradict other biblical passages and/or (in this case) our own experience.  (The last time I checked, I sin every single day!  In fact, it seems that the more I grow in Christ, the more I realize how much more sinful I am than I thought!)  So am I a Christian—or is the Bible wrong on this?  Some people respond to problem passages by simply ignoring them—but then they pile up and gradually undermine your faith.  There is another explanation—that I have wrongly understood the passage.  Let’s ask some common sense questions to understand what the passage is really saying…

Is John saying that Christians don’t sin?

The first thing we should ask is: What does the rest of the Bible teach about this issue?  Because God is the ultimate Author of the Bible, and God does not contradict himself, we can often better understand one passage by seeing what other passages teach about the same subject.  And the answer is both clear and repeated—true Christians can and do sin!

John himself (in this same letter) affirms this:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; ² and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.                   1John 2:1-2

Jesus’ atoning death forgives Christians if they sin.  If John believed that true Christians never sin, he wouldn’t have bothered to say this.

⁸ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.                   1John 1:8-10

Anyone who claims not to have sin is self-deceived and a liar—in fact, they are not saved(?).  This is the exact opposite of what 3:6 seems to say.   This should be enough to tip us off that John means something else.  Consider a couple other clear New Testament statements on this issue:

For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.​ I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.  So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand.  For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,  but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.  Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!                Romans 7:14-25

This is Paul agonizing over the presence of ongoing, indwelling sin in his present Christian life.

In James 3:2 James says “We all stumble in many ways,” meaning that sin is a common experience for all believers.  Even if he had said “You all stumble in many ways,” he is still addressing true Christians!  But he says “We all stumble in many ways”—including himself.

So if John doesn’t mean that true Christians don’t/can’t sin, what does he mean?  One way to discover this is to look more closely at the actual language of the passage (e.g., semantic range, tense voice and mood of original Greek).  When we take a close look, it is clear that John is talking about something other than Christians simply committing sins.

John uses present tenses for “sin” in 3:6,9b.  In Greek, present tenses describe ongoing action.  John is saying not that Christians cannot commit sins—but that they cannot live in sin as a settled matter of character or lifestyle.  Most people read the “sin” sentences to mean the once-in-a-while, aberrational sin, but this is not what the tense tells us.  John starts with the underlying assumption that all Christians sin and need forgiveness on an on-going basis.  This agrees with the rest of the scripture on this matter.  But then he goes on to point out that there are those Christians whose sin has become a matter of their character and lifestyle because they refuse to deal with it.  He says that those people are in spiritual trouble and may not even be saved!

A Secular Case Against Abortion

Reason, Religion, and the Sanctity of Life

by Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, is the author of The Party of Death. Since 1995, he has covered national politics and public policy for National Review. He has also written for other publications including Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsday, Washington Times, Weekly Standard, and K.C. Jones. He is the author of the monograph The Mystery of Japanese Growth published by the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Policy Studies. He has been a fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and has appeared on various television political programs and on numerous radio talk shows. Mr. Ponnuru grew up in Kansas City and went to Princeton University.

In one of Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 speeches there is a passage that pours cool scorn on those who claim to think that slavery is wrong, but “denounce all attempts to restrain it”: “You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! . . . We must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion. . . . And there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong.”

It is not my intention to argue for any view about whether abortion and slavery are precise moral equivalents; but Lincoln’s words do powerfully suggest, I think, certain parallels in the debates over the issues. As Lincoln’s comment suggests, it is the nexus of religion and politics that most clouds our thinking. In an effort to let in some sunlight I will sketch the case against abortion—more precisely, for a prohibition on abortion and other attacks on nascent human life. I will respond to some common objections to this case. And then I will make arguments about the arguments I will just have finished making: that they do not imply theological commitments; that accepting and acting on them neither violates anyone’s religious freedom nor undermines the separation of church and state, in any sense of that phrase worth worrying about.

The case against abortion—and also against research that destroys human embryos—begins with our beginnings: Each of us was once an embryo. When we were at that stage of development, we were living human organisms. The formation of the embryo marks the beginning of a new human life: a new and complete organism that belongs to the human species. Embryology textbooks say so, with no glimmer of uncertainty or ambiguity.

That new organism is alive rather than dead or inanimate. It is human rather than a member of some other species. It is an organism distinct from all others rather than a functional part of a larger organism, the way a kidney is part of a larger organism. It maintains its own organic unity over time. It directs its own development, according to its genetic template, through the embryonic, fetal, and subsequent stages. Such terms as “blastocyst,” “adolescent,” and “newborn” denote different stages of development in a being of the same type, not different types of beings—even if the parents of adolescents are sometimes tempted to disagree. At each of our earlier stages of life, we have been, as we are now, whole living members of the species Homo sapiens.

So the question that we need to answer is: Do all beings of this type—that is, whole living members of the human species—have a right not to be killed, simply because they are human beings? The answer, I believe, is yes. If human beings have intrinsic dignity and worth, then they have this dignity and worth simply because they are human beings (and as such, possessors of a rational nature). It follows that all human beings have this dignity and worth. They are equal in the fundamental rights that attach to being human. These rights—and to have any rights at all must be to have the right not to be killed—cannot depend on particular qualities that some human beings have and others do not. They cannot depend on race, or age, or sex; nor can they depend on stage of development, or location, or condition of dependency.

Most people believe these things, although they may not accept all their implications. But there is a contrary view. This view holds that there are no “human rights” in the sense of rights that come simply from being human. Rather, some human organisms have basic rights because of qualities that they, in particular, happen to have; and those human beings who do not have these qualities are not persons with rights.

So, for example, some people take the view that human beings become “persons,” and acquire rights, only when they acquire the capacity for abstract mental functioning, and cease to be persons with rights when they lose this capacity. If “capacity” is taken to mean immediately exercisable capacity (as it usually is on this view), then abortion is permissible.

There are, however, difficulties with this view. I will list three.

First: The capacity for abstract mental functioning varies continuously. But it is impossible to identify, without arbitrariness, the minimum level one must have to enjoy rights. It is also impossible to explain why people who have more of the quality should not be regarded as greater in worth, dignity, and rights than people who have less of it. (This is true, and necessarily true, of any of the qualities generally proposed as the conditions of worth: self-awareness, rich interactions with others, the ability to experience pain and pleasure, etc.) The notion that all human beings are created equal becomes a self-evident lie.

Second: This arbitrariness makes it impossible to confine the category of lives deemed unworthy of protection to the unborn and the persistently vegetative. Newborns, for example, do not have the ability to perform abstract mental functions, either, as Peter Singer never tires of reminding us. People who are asleep or in a coma, even a reversible one, lack the immediately exercisable capacity for abstract mental functioning.

Praying For Athiests?

As the New Atheists have argued in recent years that belief in God is absurd and dangerous, Jim Spiegel has noticed a conspicuous lack of attention in the responses by Christian apologists to the moral and psychological roots of atheism.

Now, in his new book, “The Making of an Atheist,” the professor of philosophy and religion at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana says atheists don’t come to the conclusion there is no God through a careful study of the evidence, but rather as a result of a “moral rebellion.” Spiegel argues atheism is a cognitive disorder arising from willful resistance to the evidence of God. In short, he argues it is the atheists who are delusional.

“The thesis of my book is that people don’t become atheists because of any perceived lack of evidence,” Spiegel says. “It’s not the result of intellectual questioning, but rather a willful suppression of the evidence – as Paul says in Romans 1: 20. That makes it more of a heart issue than an intellectual issue, which underscores the need for the Holy Spirit to change a person’s heart.”

The release of Spiegel’s book – and “Not God’s Type” by former atheist Holly Ordway – comes as Moody’s Publishers has started the “Pray for an Atheist” initiative on Facebook. The initiative, coinciding with National Atheist Day on April 1, offers Christians an opportunity to connect with atheists through social networking sites. Moody’s is encouraging people to pick an atheist friend or relative to pray for during April and to send them positive, personal messages with some non-intrusive theological ideas from www.shareanddefend.ning.com.

So far, the Facebook site has more than 600 fans.

Tracy Wagman, a stay-at-home-educating mom in Chicago, Illinois, says she’s a big fan of the Facebook page. “I love the heartbeat of their mission … prayer,” Wagman says. “We can be a united front of believers agreeing in prayer for specific atheists. I want to be busy standing in the gap between God and atheists, interceding for their conversion.”

The page also has a number of atheist fans. Brayden Simms, a 28-year-old writer living in New York City, disagrees with the premise of Spiegel’s book, arguing his atheism doesn’t stem from moral rebellion.

“Christians see morality as directly tied to the Bible so they can’t understand why atheists wouldn’t just be ‘evil,’” Simms says. “To wit: Atheists like myself think that being ‘good’ just because a book told you so is a false morality. People like me aren’t ‘good’ simply because we fear the consequences of an eternal punishment; we do things the way we perceive as the right way, for the betterment of humankind.”

The ongoing debate has a long history, dating in modern times to the 19th century when Sigmund Freud described belief in God as a psychological projection triggered by wishful thinking.

Love and the 8 Essential Attitudes

As we wind up our rather lengthy study of the book of Hebrews (it’s been in progress since June 29th last year) we are exploring the 8 essential attitudes the writer of Hebrews suggests for believers in chapter 13.  It’s important to remember, though, as we finish up, that everything we read must be understood in the context of the letter, as it was originally intended.  The thrust of the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Israel’s old forms and standards for relationship with God have been superseded by a new and better way, through Jesus.  The message is not that there is a new, novel and more interesting religion.  The message is not that there is a more modern or more relevant practice for those who wish to worship God.  The message is not that the old way was bad and this new way is good.  The message is that a progression has always been in place, and the old way was a step in that process.  The mistake the Jews made, according to this book is not that they followed the old way, but that they saw the old way as the “be all end all” of God’s revelation.  It became impossible for them to move ahead when God wanted them to.  Of course, God had also foreseen that contingency and had put in place a plan by which many Jews would come to realize that Jesus was a further and more personal revelation of Himself.  The progression from one revelation to the next would not continue forever, and Jesus was the end of the progression.Looking at it from our point of view, it is rather easier to see than it was for them, that the progression of God’s revelation of Himself:

1. To a fallen Adam and Eve, the veiled Genesis 3:15 reference to the war between God and His enemy, and the prescribed end to that war.
2. The revelation to the Patriarchs leading up to Noah, then to Job, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. Onward to the revelation of Himself through Moses and the Law to National Israel.
4. Then through David and Solomon, the revelation of God in a theocratic government, and the victorious nationhood it was so hard for them to leave behind, with their beautiful temple, their strident and purposeful priesthood and their powerful place among the nations of the world.
5. The revelation of God to an apostate Judah and Israel through the Prophets, both former and latter, ending in defeat, captivity and scattering, yet not without the message of hope, the prophecy that they would again be gathered to the place God had given them, and would again be favored as His people.
6. His full and final revelation in Jesus, the Messiah, Son of God, victorious One, Firstborn from among the dead, Savior not only of National Israel, but for all who would “call upon the name of the Lord” and become part of the People of God.
7. The future revelation of Jesus as the Righteous Judge of all mankind.

Many theologians and historians have seen these 7 divisions and viewed them as “dispensations,” focusing upon the difference in the manner in which God related to the people during each of the periods of time.  This has led to a widely held view, aptly called “dispensationalism,” which sees each of the 7 different revelations as a discreet unit, again, focusing upon the differences between them, and relating the whole of the story only in segments.  There is a certain amount of truth to be found in viewing salvation history this way.  However, as we have discussed many times, there are also some important things that get glossed over when we focus only upon the differences.  History becomes a “train,” as it were, of different ways in which God has revealed Himself to the world.  Each of the eras or dispensations can be described by itself in exclusion to the other eras.  This, I believe, leaves out something rather important, and that is that the first era is marked by a prophetic passage (again, Genesis 3:15) that also contains a hint of the 6th and 7th eras.  This leads me to believe that God intends us to see the whole of His revelation to mankind, not just the various parts.  When we look at the progression as a whole, we can see the lengths to which He has gone to completely and perfectly reveal Himself, His will and His character to us.  The issue becomes, not just the various methods He has used, but the singular purpose and heart with which He has approached us, seeking to draw as many to Himself as He possibly could.  Then we see, as the writer of Hebrews sums up for us in chapter 1:

“Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son,​a​ whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains​b​ all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”

The upshot of all this is that the message of the New Testament church is not that there is a different way to come into relationship to God, but that God has finally finished revealing Himself to mankind and we now understand what He wants, what He expects of us, and how we are to change in order to properly relate to Him.  This leads us, then, to the 8 essential attitudes I spoke of earlier:

1. A well-developed, sincere and practical love for each other within the fellowship of the people of God.  Philadelphia, the love of the brothers, is the word used here, and it is a Verb, not a Noun.
2. A studied, practiced and honest love extended to those outside the fellowship of the people of God.  Philoxenia, the love of strangers, is the word used here, and it also is a Verb, not a Noun.
3. A pure and undefiled view of God’s plan for sexual purity and marriage, and a clearly held understanding of why marriage and family are so important to Him.  This is cast in the context of Hebrews 13 as an imperative for worship.
4. An intentional approach to living by faith that places God’s provision above what we can gain on our own, by our talents or giftings.  Trusting God for everything we require to live.   This is also cast in the context of Hebrews 13 as an imperative for worship.
5. Rejection of the worldly values of greed and the love of money, by which “some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.” (1 Timothy 6:10)  The writer here uses the word “Philarguros, the love of silver,” and again, it is cast as a Verb, not something we have, but something we do, and we are encouraged to reject that action on a consistent and daily basis.  Wherever we encounter temptation to “do love to money” we are to deny ourselves the pleasure and rely upon the People of God and upon God Himself, as our sustenance.
6. Adoption of an intentional plan, by which we bring ourselves under accountability, not only to God and to each other, within the fellowship of the People of God, but also, formally, under proper spiritual leadership of individuals within the fellowship who are approved and appointed for that purpose.  This also is an imperative for the new type of worship under the New Covenant.  Implied is the concept that the gathered church is able and willing to equip and appoint true spiritual leaders for the flock.  This is an area in which the modern and postmodern church has abdicated her responsibility, and one with which we must come back into compliance if our relationship with God is to be strong enough to change the world.
7. Avoidance of extreme or unbalanced teachings and positions on issues that arise, both theologically, politically and personally.  New Testament Christians are to hold to what is right, and yet be open to hear what others may say on any issue, without being carried away by extremes.
8. Adoption of a radical non-conformity to the world system, both as individuals, and corporately as the New Testament church, that sets us apart from whatever trend, fad or fantasy the world system is intending people to become involved in.  We are to be among the people of the world, without embarrassment and able to parse, without shame, the issues they raise, and yet we are not to be part of the world system’s practices, excesses and addictions.

These attitudes, then, summarize where we are going as we finalize our time together in the Epistle to the Hebrews.  Since the discussion of love is so much a part of all this, I have posted C.S. Lewis’ discussion of the Four Loves, his lectures on the 4 biblical Greek words translated into English as “love.”  You may download these 30 minute talks and listen to them on your iPod, or simply play them and listen on your PC.  Go to Podcast Site.

The Heart of the Matter

Several years ago, when I was on staff at YCC, I was in charge of an all-day-Saturday men’s get together we called “Men At Work!”  We had big yellow signs, and we all wore hard hats, and we ate  together.  Some guys wore coveralls and other guys wore jeans or bib overalls.  There were about 120 men there and it was a hoot!  But one of the things that has stuck with me was a message offered by a pastor from another church here in Yucaipa.  It was a simple message, with three instructive sections to it.

1. We should hold our relationship with God and our spiritual condition in the highest priority.
2. We should keep our relationships at home sacred and make sure no polluting influence comes in.
3. We should be very careful about our outward attitudes and relationships in the world – the way the world relates to us.

The three points were well made and everyone got a lot out of the message.  But the minister used a repetitive device to emphasize the message that’s always stuck with me.  It’s clever, catchy, and true.  At the beginning of the message, and then at each juncture, at the beginning of each illustration, and just before restating each point he said:  “The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.  And the matter of the heart is the heart of the matter.”  It re-focused me every time I heard him say that.  I couldn’t take his teaching as academically correct or as just a good idea.  Every time he said that, and every time I re-focused my attention on my heart, what came next was the Word of God to me.  I was enlightened, encouraged, built up and strengthened in my faith.  I was convicted of my sin and sought forgiveness, and received it, all in the space of a few short moments, as he spoke.  And it wasn’t so much those words he said.  It was me, focusing on my heart, as I heard his words, that made the difference.  I’ve never forgotten that day, and the giant leap my relationship with Jesus took.

You see, it’s the relationship that is the heart of the matter.  I think many people “give their life” to Jesus, and then think, “OK, I have a relationship with Him, now what?”  It’s like the woman who finds the man of her dreams, but after they’re married, thinks:  “OK, well, I’m married.  We have intimacy sometimes, and we have children, and a home.  That’s good!  Now, how can I get on about the business of fulfilling my life’s desires?  Hmmmmm.  I wonder what my life’s desires really are.  I’ve never thought much about that.  I guess I should look around, outside our marriage and home, and see what’s available to me.”  That’s a recipe for disaster, and we all know it, but many of us do exactly that same thing in our relationship with Jesus.  And it’s easier, because intimacy with Him isn’t a physical thing.  That makes ignoring intimacy very easy.  So we treat Jesus like the husband who never comes home at night!  I know this has been true of me.  I wonder if anyone else experiences this sort of thing.

Our churches aren’t often helpful in this regard either, because they often equate intimacy with Jesus to doing church work.  “Well, if you’re busy teaching a class, or being a communion server, or some other thing, it must mean that you’re having intimacy with our Lord, right?”  Sometimes, the people that work the hardest at church are the ones who are having “intimacy issues” in their relationship with Christ.  Perhaps a re-examination of the whole issue is needed, on a personal basis, and then corporately, as the Bride of Christ?  The New Covenant Jesus established implies a depth of relationship not possible (or at least not probable) under the Old Covenant.

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,” says the Lord.  “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”  Jeremiah 31:31-34 NKJV

The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

And the matter of the heart is the heart of the matter.

On Common Ground

“In the Church of Jesus Christ there can and should be no non-theologians.”       

Karl Barth (1886-1968)

After our class the other day, someone asked: “Do you ever just teach the Bible?  Or is your class all discussion and different ideas about the Bible?”  That’s a legitimate question.  Our class group could seem chaotic, what with all the discussion, and one might wonder, “Who’s in charge here?”  Most folks who come to the Sunday morning gathering we call a Bible class have had plenty of time to become comfortable with our discussions, our fellowship and our common understanding of scripture.  In reflecting on those questions I wondered if it doesn’t become too comfortable for us sometimes, and if we don’t take for granted the continuing progress we’ve made.

So I sat down on Sunday afternoon, between classes, and jotted down the following outline.  It covers topics we’ve discussed in the past couple years, and also basic concepts I think all believers should understand and hold in common.  The foundation of our class discussion is that everyone in our group has read and spent considerable time in the scriptures on a personal level, and we hold many basic assumptions about the Bible in common.  Without that foundation groups like ours wouldn’t be possible.  I have known some folks to come to our class and feel intimidated because everyone speaks, and there is so much interaction, it could be hard to make a start.  Again, a case for the restatement of our common ground.  Once we have the basics firmly set in our minds, the gathering of the body of Christ, or any part of it, should center upon conversation and discussion, set around the scriptures, to encourage and “spur one another on to love and good works.” (Heb 10:24)

The Bible

A. The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. (Note: 3 x 9 = 27).

1. The OT has 23,214 verses. The NT has 7,959 verses.

B. The Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years.

1. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout.
2. It was written on three continents:  Africa, Asia, and Europe.
3. It was written by a variety of people: prophets, priest, cupbearer, a king, judges, fishermen, etc.

C. The Bible was divided into chapters by Stephen Langton about A.D. 1228.

1. The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in A.D. 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551.

D. Old Testament — a total of 39 books and 5 main divisions:

1. Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy), Historical (Joshua to Esther), Poetic (Job to Song of Solomon), Major Prophets (Isaiah to Daniel), Minor Prophets (Hosea to Malachi).

E. New Testament — a total of 27 books with 4 main divisions:

1. Gospels (Matthew to John), History (Acts), Epistles (Romans to Jude), Prophetic (Revelation).

F. Reasons for trusting the reliability of the biblical documents:

Problem Passages in Hebrews (Part 1)

We’re working on the ability to make our Sunday AM class discussions available in streaming audio, and we began that with this session.  I’m linking here to the audio from today’s class, which is only partly there because I forgot to push the button on the recorder.  OK, it’s a start!  The written notes below give the general thrust of our discussion and the main points of our teaching today.  This is the first installment on our look at the 2 major problem passages in Hebrews.

Class Discussion: Sunday, October 18

We’ve been discussing in our class this past couple weeks the two problem passages in Hebrews chapters 10 and 6 which seem to carry for us some information on the issue of whether or not it is possible for believers to lose their position in Christ, to lose their salvation. The first of those passages is Hebrews 10:26-31:

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,

27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This particular passage tends to be used, apart from its natural context, by several different Christian groups in several different ways.

• Predestinarians, comprising many of the mainstream denominations and Calvinist groups, will use the passage to say that people who lack assurance of their election to God’s people and experience problems with personal sin after having made a commitment to Christ may not be part of God’s elect group of those chosen prior to the foundation of the world for salvation.  Their commitment to Christ is noble, but emotional, and even though church fellowship, Bible study and prayer will certainly increase the quality of their lives, eternal life will not be an option for them.  Their continued battle with sin and the absence of an independent sign of their salvation (the sign differs from group to group but usually entails some event a person can point to in which God ratifies their election) is a sign of their having not been made part of the elect.
• Legalists, often comprising groups in which “cessation theology” is prevalent will tend to use this passage to say that people can be well and truly saved, then fall from grace into a sinful, and possibly even an unsaved state.  These hapless individuals are again candidate for evangelism and may again choose to start over with God.

Both of these positions lack understanding in some particular way.  And the truth is, that even though the official positions of the churches who hold to these positions are stated as such, most believers do not relate to God through Christ in either way.  This is a case in which theology is out of sync with life.  Most believers relate to God as though He has not pre-selected those He wishes to be His people.  We tend to assume that everyone has an equal opportunity to come into the New Covenant of salvation offered through the sacrifice of Christ.  And, while we understand that some believers have more trouble leaving behind their sinful past, we neither expect them to become sinless, nor do we behave as though they have lost their salvation when they fall into sin.  Repentence is the appropriate response to sin for most believers.  This “middle way” is not only more palatable to most believers, but as we have been saying for some time in our discussion, it is more Biblical also.  This middle way accounts for the wild card in God’s deck, the thing He wants most and which He values most highly:  Relationship.  Once we understand relationship with God, those academically-arrived-at theological positions pale insignificant.  It is relationship with God that provides the understanding for our problem passage here, as well.