Tag Archives: Christianity

• 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.

•

Gordon E. Olsen,  Professor of Theology at Baylor University, recently declared capital punishment a "heresy" and judged those who support it to be worthy of church discipline.

If Olson wishes to argue that our current justice system is not reliable enough to justify using the death penalty, he could make that argument.  But that is not what he is doing here.

In "The Heresy of Capital Punishment" Olson (without a single Scripture reference) makes an absolute statement about what Jesus would do, setting the Son against His Father in the Noahic Covenant.

In the comments thread, one of the objections against using God's Covenant to support capital punishment goes, "if we use Moses to support capital punishment, we must also advocate killing adulterers, rebellious children and witches."

Not so.

In the Mosaic Covenant, God made a covenant with the Hebrew nation.  In the Noahic Covenant, God made a covenant with all of mankind.  In this covenant, God makes it clear that because of the preciousness of "imageo Dei" (the image of God) the taking of a human life warrants a punishment in kind.

Genesis 9:5-6

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image

Genesis 9:11-12

I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations

God prescribed the death penalty, in the Noahic Covenant, for those who shed the blood of humans, whether man or beast, with the rainbow as the sign and seal, for "ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS" We find no mention of adultery, witches, rebellious children in this covenant with mankind, for all future generations.

The ESV Study Notes says here:

Human life is to be valued so highly that it is protected by this system of punishment because God made man in his own image, and so to murder another human being is to murder what is most like God, and is thus implicitly an attack on God himself. Many would see this statement as establishing the moral principle permitting the death penalty in cases of murder—with the understanding that the person charged would have been justly tried and his guilt established beyond any reasonable doubt (cf. the OT requirement of two or three witnesses, Deut. 19:15; repeated in the NT, e. g., Matt. 18:16; Heb. 10:28). A further requirement is that such a death- penalty verdict must always be carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities (cf. Deut. 19:15–21; Rom. 13:1–5). The difficulty of establishing guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and the difficulty of ensuring justice in a modern, complex urban society (as compared to an ancient village- based society) underscore the great care and caution that must be taken in applying this principle today.

This study note is important because Olson repeatedly ascribes  "blood lust" to those who support capital punishment.  This shows a lack of understanding between personal retribution and an adjudicated verdict carried out under the jurisdiction of the established authorities.

In the face of God's covenant with "all future generations," the accusation of "heresy"seems misplaced.  But he does make the accusation, teaching that he believes supporting capital punishment should be addressed through "church discipline."

"Sin" is addressed through church discipline...church discipline ends with excommunication and being treated as an unbeliever (Matt. 18:15-17.). The brunt of Olson's teaching says that those of us who believe that God's covenant with all of mankind, and all future generations says that: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" are in sin.

Olson writes:

I believe Christian churches of all kinds ought to do more to oppose capital punishment. They ought, at the very least, to declare it incompatible with Christian faith and put members who openly believe in it under some kind of discipline (not necessarily excommunication but at least forbidding them to teach it in the ecclesial context). And those who practice it, actively seeking it and participating in it, should be excommunicated from Christian churches. It ought to be a matter of status confessionis—as apartheid was declared by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches which helped lead to its downfall in South Africa.

There are three segments to the above paragraph.  We can call it the "doctrine of shut up"

1 - declare "it" incompatible with Christianity (shut up

2 - or come under church discipline (or we'll make you shut up)

3 - status confessionis - (if we can't make you shut up, we'll kick you out.)

Kevin DeYoung said, about "status confessionis:" It means that a particular doctrine is essential to who we are as a church. If something is status confessionis it means this is a make or break issue. It means that the church will not tolerate others views on this matter.

So, in short, God the Father, in the Noahic Covenant with mankind, for all future generations says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

Roger Olson says, "we should not tolerate that."

 

• 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?”

    •
    ★★★★★★

    "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner

    For a beginner to Reformed theology, this book will give the basics of TULIP in an accessible way. If you are firmly already in the "ANTI-" camp, don't bother reading the book, you'll hate it. But if you want to learn about the theology, with an open mind, this is a great place to start.

    This book begins at the beginning. Boettner teaches in this book that all of "TULIP" stands or falls together and starts with the "T" - total depravity.

    For Boettner, the sovereignty of God is something to be glorified, not hated. We deserve nothing from God, and the idea that He saves some at all is a testament to goodness.

    Each segment is supported with Scripture, and explained thoroughly.

    There is a little bit of "here's where the other side is wrong" - and sometimes in not very graceful language - but even those are framed in "here's why from Scripture"

    I read the Amazon reviews and there were a few of "one-star" reviews. ALL of these were not based on the writing of the book, but on their disagreement with Calvinism.

    •

    Within a few days, SCOTUS will be delivering decisions on same sex "marriage."

    That means that, as Tim Challies said:

    once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships

    1. Given that Scripture never "moves the definition of marriage" away from polygamy

      Bathsheba was David's WIFE

     

      Rachel was Jacob's WIFE

     

      Gideon had many WIVES

     

      Jehovah had Israel and Judah

    2. Given that (as I pointed out a couple of days ago) we must not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin"

    3. Given that "where there is no law, there is no sin."

    ...Christians should NOT be lumping polygamy in with same sex "marriage."

    One is called "marriage" and the other is called "abomination."

    This is purely from a Biblical view, not touching (yet) politics in today's world.

    Does this mean that I think Christian evangelicals should embrace and practice polygamy? No, but I think that if a converted Mormon or Muslim shows up in our churches with plural wives, we should accept their marriages.

    •

    So...Im reading in 1 Thessalonians....v. 4

    For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction

    The conviction, the power and the Holy Spirit came not as the result of our choice, but of God's choice.

    😉