Author Archives: MzEllen, posted from my iPad

• 2 Comments

•

I put a tag on this of "Pentecostal" since "Oneness" nearly always belongs to Pentecostal these day.

"You're a mom, but you're also a daughter...these are different roles you play at different times, depending on the circumstance.

It breaks down:

1) the Father is Jesus' Father. If Jesus and His Father are the same person, I am my own mother. I am not my mother.

2) Jesus is the Son if God. I also am not my own daughter.

Where "mom" is the same person, relating to different people...

The Trinity is different persons relating to the same creation.

•

A good Wiki page, giving both sides

The first two issues show the main Cessationist concerns about charismata and reveal the underlying rationale for Cessationism. The sections below describe what kind of disagreements emerge between Cessationism and Continuationism in their respective understandings of the gifts, and further issues then arising from these disagreements. Different understandings of charismata give rise to various tensions in the dispute.

White Horse Inn weighed in a couple of years ago:

Particularly in the wake of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, this question has divided Christians into two camps: cessationists (believing that the gifts of healing, prophecy, and tongues have ceased) and non-cessationists. Non-cessationists find no exegetical reason to distinguish some of these gifts and offices from others in terms of their perpetuity. However, cessationists hold that the New Testament itself makes a distinction between the foundation-laying era of the apostles and the era of building the church on their completed foundation (1 Cor 3:10-11). Although the New Testament establishes the offices of pastors/teachers, elders, and deacons, it does not establish perpetual prophetic or apostolic offices with their attendant sign-gifts. With this in mind, we must examine each gift in question.

Reformedpresbytery.org has a position paper quoting Calvin:

... concerning Prophets, I have before showed out of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. Jud.) that, in his days, their were still some in the church who had an extraordinary gift of prophecy, and such there have been also in other places, and at other times; of which there might be diverse instances given.

• 1 Comment

•

I have a relationship with Christ.
And my boss.
And my landlord.
And my president.
And Satan.

All are "relationships" so they're all equal. (We'll most likely agree that's incorrect.)

My point is that the word "relationship" is meaningless unless you know what the relationship is defined by.

My relationship with my boss is defined by my contract.
My landlord...my rental agreement
My president...the Constitution.

My relationship with Christ is defined by the Christian religion.

Religion (Merriam-Webster, in part)

the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I serve and worship God. This is a good thing.

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Attitudes and beliefs:

Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)
Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

And practices

Communion
Baptism
Corporate worship

This, in part, defines my "relationship" with Christ.

He's not my landlord, He is my GOD.

I cannot reject "religion" without rejecting all He has done.

Lactantius, in his "Divine Institutes" (IV, xxviii.) wrote, "We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety..."

Augustine, in his treatise "On the True Religion", says: "Religion binds us [religat] to the one Almighty God"

And we turn to Scripture:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world

This is what you deny, when you deny "religion."

If you still want to reject "religion," then reject our shared beliefs, our shared practices, reject worship and service of God, reject being bound to Him.

(By the way, this "religion" also defines my relationship with Satan. I was his...now I am not. He s my enemy and he is defeated by Christ.)

•

I guess what gets me is that if one of the ways to develop an understanding of the question is to look at the way the sides treat the other, there's something interesting going on with this one.

It's a relationship. I hate religion. It's man made and it kills and it's bad.

or

It's both. You can't have Christianity without a relationship with Christ...but you also can't have that relationship if you don't have the terms of that relationship - defined by the religion.

Religion: worship of a deity - a set of common beliefs about that deity. Augustine wrote about "religion" having the meaning of "being bound fast"

As a people of God, we are all bound fast by our common beliefs in God: The deity of Christ and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ being central.

"Religion" is "us-centered." We are one church, one bride, one family of God.

"Relationship" is "me-centered" - my Jesus, my relationship. (note: that's not a bad thing, that personal relationship is as necessary as the "us" piece.)

I saw a baby dedication this past weekend. The thought struck me then: if there is no "bound togetherness of shared beliefs" - why have the congregation commit to helping the parents (the "us piece" bring that child up in those beliefs?

It's got to be both? You have a relationship with your spouse; it's the marriage covenant that defines what that relationship looks like.

You have a relationship with Christ; its the terms of the Christian religion that defines what that relationship looks like.

•

On August 7 I'm having surgery on my rotator cuff (left shoulder)

I'm way more nervous after talking to the nurse, than I was after talking to the doctor. And WAY more nervous after poking around on line.

And even more nervous after talking to my sister, whose husband had a very similar surgery done (shoulder labrum)

But it's at the point that it needs to be done. The first time it hurt was 20 years ago, and it flares up and then goes away...swelling and a little separation. Well, now it's a tear and it's not getting better.

My shoulder is getting stiffer and more sore, but I think it's because now I'm worried about it and using it less, so today I'm starting the same stretches that I'll be doing right after surgery.

• 1 Comment

•

Yesterday I wrote about what a "license" does and what it means for marriage.

If...

  • A license grants you permission to do that which is otherwise illegal....

    • then...

  • (in non-common law states) it is illegal for Christians to marry unless they gain the state's permission first.

    • The Gospel Coalition asked a couple of years ago

    Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    It seems to me, that at this point, the state has the right to divorce the civil from the religious (courthouse wedding, etc.) but the religious does not have the right to divorce the religious from the civil (it is illegal to have a Christian wedding without the state's permission.

    (caveat: common law states have specific criteria to be met in order to qualify as a "common law marriage. There are a couple of states that require that in order for a common law marriage to be "official" it must be registered with the state [but with no prior permission from the state needed] In common law states, one could have a religious ceremony without having to get the state's permission, thus divorcing the religious from the civil)

    I have made it known that I refuse to be married in a state with a "gender neutral" license (such as California.) I am NOT "party B"

    I believe the time is coming when the definition of "marriage" as required by the state, will be so far astray of the definition of "marriage" as defined by God, that Christians will, with clean conscience, reject civil marriage.

    The question is: do we provide "test cases" now? or wait until persecution begins?

    •

    This article at the Gospel Coalition was written nearly two years ago.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    In the last few months, we've been discussing this a lot. At what point does the state give up the right to define marriage for Christians? If the state forfeits that right, by defining "marriage" in such a way that it no longer resemble's God's definition, is a Christian obligated to have the state's permission to call themselves "married"?

    Let's start with the "permission" part.

    In Michigan,

  • there is still a law on the books against cohabitation - a heterosexual couple may not live together without being married
  • a heterosexual couple is required to have a marriage license before being married.
  • it is illegal for a pastor to officiate in a marriage ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.

    • In order to live together in marriage, a couple in Michigan must have a marriage license; they must have the State's permission to marry.

    Why do I use the word "permission"? It's the word "license"

    What does a driver's license to? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to drive without one.
    Hunting license? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to hunt without one.
    Concealed Carry License? It gives you permission to carry a concealed weapon and it's illegal to carry without one.

    Through a license, the States grant you permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.

    With that logic, it is ILLEGAL to call oneself "married" unless the State has given you permission to do so.

    At what point did the State get the authority to define marriage in such a way that we must have the State's permission to marry?

    The "State" has married the Christian wedding ceremony and the civil rite to the point that you MAY NOT have a Christian wedding Ceremony WITHOUT the civil rite.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    •

    Since I Rob Bell's Mars Hill is only a few miles from where I live (he's gone, church is still there), I sort of keep an eye.

    Here is Michael Kruger's review of Bell's new book, "What We Talk About When We Talk About God"

    In the end, my overall concern about this volume is a simple one: it is not Christian. Bell's makeover of Christianity has changed it into something entirely different. It is not Christianity at all, it is modern liberalism. It is the same liberalism that Machen fought in the 1920's and the same liberalism prevalent in far too many churches today. It is the liberalism that teaches that God exists and that Jesus is the source of our happiness and our fulfillment, but all of this comes apart from any real mention of sin, judgment, and the cross. It is the liberalism that says we can know nothing for sure, except of course, that those "fundamentalists" are wrong. It is the liberalism that appeals to the Bible from time to time, but then simply ignores large portions of it.

    ~~~

    How To Read a Book

    Not so much for the "how to read" but the "how to review" if the "answer these four questions" segment:

    1. What is the book about, as a whole?
    2. What is being said, in detail, and how?
    3. Is the book true, in whole or in part?
    4. What of it? What's the significance, and how?

    ~~~

    Same sex "marriage" round up

    The Witherspoon Institute focuses not on the "marriage" but how it will affect religious liberty

    ~~~

    abortion / gun rights (yes)

    "A Good Question" via Gay Patriot

    “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?“ Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”