Entries Tagged 'Theology' ↓

Travis says that Joel Osteen’s ever-popular message makes him an enemy of the Gospel of Christ.

I agree.

What do you think?

From John Bunyan . . .

Run, John, run, the law commands
But gives us neither feet nor hands,
Far better news the gospel brings:
It bids us fly and gives us wings.

Holy crap, we are MESSED UP!

In his blog, Al Mohler recently highlighted a Slate article in which Chloe Breyer (an Episcopal priest, and daughter of US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer) questions the veracity and the importance of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ. Now, such conjecture has been around for centuries. There is truly nothing new under the sun. Still, I’d been thinking about the virginal conception and its necessity recently, and reading Ms. Breyer’s article worked me up a little.

Why is the virgin birth of Christ important? Why does it matter? Why is it one of the doctrines that orthodox (little “o”) Christians stake their belief upon? One reason, which would itself be sufficient were it the only one, is simple: God said so. Isaiah recorded in what is now chapter 7 of his prophecy that Ahaz, king of Judah, was asked (even commanded) by God to ask Him for a sign . . . for proof that what He was saying was the truth. In his false piety, Ahaz refused God’s request, so God decided to give a sign anyway, and Isaiah told him what it would be:

And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Another pointer to the necessity of the virginal conception is the curse the Lord declared on Jeconiah (aka: Coniah), the heir-apparent to the throne of David. In verse 30 of Jeremiah 22, God says of Jeconiah . . .

“Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.”

This verse is what makes the seemingly-boring genealogies of Christ as recorded in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels so compelling. His earthly father, Joseph, was of the line and house of David, Solomon, and all of the subsequent kings and heirs-apparent of Judah, up to Jeconiah. That genealogy is recorded in Matthew. His mother, Mary, was also of David’s line, but descended from a different son of David, namely Nathan. Her genealogy is recorded in Luke. Joseph, being descended from Jeconiah, could not have been Jesus’ natural father, as Jesus would then been under the curse, and would have no right to be called “King of the Jews”. As Joseph’s step-son (but not his biological son), He inherited the legal right to the throne through Joseph, as a descendent of David, as that right was passed from the father. His biological right to the throne, however, came through Mary, who was also a descendent of David (but not of Jeconiah).

I’ve heard arguments here and there that Jesus needed to be born of a virgin because somehow the sin nature is passed from the father. Sounds nice, but I’m not convinced of that by Scripture. I think that if God had wanted the eternally pre-existent Son to be incarnated through the union of two humans, He could’ve made it happen. The bottom line is this: God said that he would give the virginal conception as a sign, and though Ahaz did not live to see it, God kept His word. God said that no descendent of Jeconiah would sit on David’s throne, but that a descendent of David would indeed reclaim that throne one day. He placed His own “seed” in the womb of Mary, a young girl descended from David, and again kept His word, as He always does

May your celebration of the virgin-born savior be sweet.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. – Isaiah 40:8 (ESV)

The smartass in me imagines the United Church of Christ giving a response of “fo’eva? Fo’eva-eva? Fo’eva-eva?!” (a la André 3000 in Ms. Jackson).

During the work week, I often drive past Dublin Community Church, a UCC-affiliated church with a beautiful old building. On its sign, there is (or was . . . I’m not certain it’s still there) a sign reading “God Is Still Speaking”. You see, the United Church started a campaign called “StillSpeaking” a year or so ago, with the tagline “God is still speaking,” which is in turn based on a quote attributed to Gracie Allen (wife of George Burns): “Never place a period where God has placed a comma”. (This campaign is most notorious for the infamous “Bouncer” ad that I wrote about late last year on my LiveJournal . . . that entry probably garnered the most comments I’ve ever had for a single post.)

I think that there’s value in the statement, when taken at face value. God isn’t silent and he’s not dead. He speaks constantly through Scripture, through our experiences, through wise teachers, and directly to the hearts of his children through his Spirit. From looking through the StillSpeaking website (along with what I already know of the United Church), though, their use of the slogan seems to largely mean “God is saying new, different, ‘better’ things than what’s recorded in Scripture.” Perhaps that all religions and belief systems somehow will make a person just before God . . . perhaps that homosexual behaviour really isn’t wrong . . . perhaps that man really did come evolve from monkeys. Who knows? Looking through a few websites of UCC congregations, many use it to trumpet the fact that they “welcome all of God’s people,” meaning that your race, marital status, age, and (especially) your sexual behavior won’t bar you from entering for worship. First of all, Scripture suggests nothing different . . . Christ forgives, justifies, and changes all who will come to him by faith. God’s not saying anything new there. Second, “welcoming all of God’s people” is actually a pretty exclusive statement, considering the fact that the only people referred to in Scripture as “God’s people” are believer-followers of God (revealed in Christ). Of course, the UCC would likely never agree to such a restrictive definition. Guess God’s still speaking there, as well, eh?

I can appreciate the sentiment that they’re trying to create . . . a picture of a church with doors open to people of all walks of life. Unfortunately, those that they’re attracting the most with this campaign are those who likely need the Gospel the most . . . and it’s likely that they won’t hear that in the most theologically liberal church group in the country.

God is still speaking, yes. I just don’t believe that he’s saying anything that he hasn’t been telling us for ages, or that he’s taken anything back.

(Crossposted from my LiveJournal)

And now for something that would likely horrify most people at my old church in Birmingham (bless their hearts) . . .

1) I went to a costume party this past Friday night (yes, there’s a significant number who’d be horrified by this fact alone).
2) It was at my pastor’s house. (gasp!!)
3) There was beer available. (“Your PASTOR had BEER?!” *faint*)
4) I partook in #3 . . . Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Sea Dog Pumpkin Ale from Trader Joe’s, as well. (“You’re goin’ to hell, boy.”)

One thing I appreciate about the Presbyterian tradition is the emphasis on “Christian Liberty”, that is, the fact that Christ has set his people free from the law . . . not only the law of sin and death, but from man-made religious “laws” with no basis in Scripture (for instance, the widespread belief that all followers of Christ MUST abstain from all alcohol). Certainly there are those who SHOULD abstain from alcohol, either because they’re recovering from an addiction, or simply because of their own conscience, but those are individual cases and individual convictions, not general truisms. It’s unfortunate that the church-at-large often forbids that which, in moderation, is a gift from God to make our hearts glad.

I thoroughly enjoyed my two bottles of Christian Liberty Friday night, along with the fellowship that it accompanied.

A favorite rallying cry of those who love to denigrate biblical authority regarding sex is that “Jesus never said anything about sex”, implying that what the Apostles said about sex is null and void, since Jesus supposedly never said anything about it.

Not that such a claim would be deserving of any credence if it were actually correct, but I wonder if those folks have ever seen Matthew 15.

“The Eucharist is another way God gets His Gospel into us. If we won’t listen to the Gospel preached with our ears, that’s okay. He just crams it down our throats in the form of bread and wine.”

(Thanks to Mere Comments for this.)

It’s no secret that I have very little respect or hope for the United Church of Christ, possibly better termed “Unitarians Considering Christ”. I’ve long thought it an apostate denomination with a few actual Christians scattered here and there.

Well, apparently a few of the people there who have their heads on somewhat straight decided that it was time for the denomination to officially affirm that, yes, they believe that Jesus is Lord. Unbelievably (or perhaps believably), the resolution is expected to fail.

Kyrie eleison . . .

The Apostle Paul, writing to the ancient Roman church, said this:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. – Romans 2.6-11 (ESV)

This little passage has irked me for a while now, especially since God began “reforming my heart” about a year and a half ago. Statements like “he will render to each one according to his works” and “there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil . . . but glory and honor and peace for eveyone who does good”, at first glance and thought, betray my Protestant sensibilities. Does this teach a works-based salvation? Is the very thing that Martin Luther went to battle with Rome over sitting right here in Scripture? Salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone, right? Sola gratia! Sola Fide! This is a “hill upon which to die” for us! What’s all this talk of works?! My mind has wrestled with this passage for hours at a time without resolution, and all of the commentaries in the world (ok, on my bookshelf) didn’t offer much help.

When I looked in the bulletin and saw that Greg would be preaching on this passage tonight, I silently said “PLEASE God, use him to explain this to me”.

God answers prayer.

It was made clear tonight . . . Paul was in no way teaching that one is saved or justified by his works. Indeed, that’s the very thing he rails against in the very next chapter of Romans. We are justified by faith; we are judged by works. To put it another way, God provides our salvation through the faith in Christ that he gives; our works prove that salvation. This is what Paul is saying here, and it echoes James’ sentiment that “faith apart from works is useless” (James 2.20). Yes, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us when he gives us the gift of faith, but he does not stop there. He does not only elect us to salvation, but also to sanctification, that is, to right living and right thoughts and right attitudes . . . to be “conformed to the image of his son” (Romans 8.29).

Amen.

Thank God for answered prayer, and thank God for people who are willing to be used as vessels to communicate his truth. Soli Deo Gloria!

Now, to glorify him by listening to some old school Havalina Rail Co.