Showing posts with label The Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Church. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Dead Women in Combat: Does Anyone Care?
A Call for Americans to Cherish the Weaker Sex
About the Author
Wesley Strackbein has served as the Coordinating Producer of a variety of films, including The Mysterious Islands. He handles media relations for VFM and is the Managing Editor of Vision Forum Ministries’ website.
Dead women — killed on the frontlines of combat — are no more a terrible sight to behold than dead men.So declared General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as he joined President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in announcing a formal policy change on January 24 which removes the last restraints for women to serve in all active combat roles in the U.S. military. As part of a much-hyped and heralded public relations move by the current administration, Dempsey stated: “I’ve gone to Bethesda to visit wounded warriors, and I’ve gone to Arlington to bury our dead. There’s no distinction [between men and women].”[1]
As shocking as this may sound, it accurately reflects the changing attitudes of most Americans toward women in combat.
Our nation has had more than a decade to digest the horrors of our servicewomen being maimed, tortured, and killed in foreign wars, as the U.S. military has increasingly expanded the scenarios in which our female soldiers are placed in harm’s way. More than 150 female soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result, and servicewomen such as Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson have been captured and suffered severe torture as prisoners of war.
Yet rather than respond in outrage, Americans have largely viewed the sufferings of women in combat as no different than the hard plight of “one of the boys.”
In 2004, the New York Times ran a cover story which featured a gruesome image of a wounded female soldier, blood running down her leg, with three men surrounding her, screaming. Rather callously, the Times titled the article, “A Routine Burst of Chaos Leaves a G.I. Wounded.” In writing the piece, journalist Dexter Filkins in no way keyed in on the fact that the wounded G.I. was a woman — he reported the story as if she had been any other male soldier hit by enemy fire.[2]
While this news article might be dismissed as liberal media bias, the majority of the American public is on board with our government’s recent decision to allow women to serve at the point of the spear in battle, where the brutalities of war are normally most fierce. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center on Jan 24-27, 66% of Americans support lifting the combat ban for women, while only 26% oppose it.[3]
Retired U.S. Navy Captain Lory Manning made this startling yet astute observation on the tepid reaction Americans have shown to female soldiers being harmed in war: “Everyone expected a hue and cry when women started getting killed in combat, and it hasn’t happened. . . . The American public is ready to accept a greater number of female casualties in wartime.”[4]
The Law of the Innocents: Women Rescued from Combat Duty
Such apathy toward women in combat was considered appalling by past generations who embraced a Christian worldview. A powerful example of this occurred in Ireland at the close of seventh century A.D., when Adomnán — a Christian statesman, abbot of Iona, and biographer of Columba — denounced the placing of women on the frontlines of combat, promulgating a law to end this travesty.[5]
The war practice of unconverted clans in Ireland during this time was despicable. When they formed up for line of battle, husbands placed their wives directly in front of them on the field. Often carrying a baby with her in a pouch, the woman warrior was given a thirty-foot-long pole with an iron hook on the end which served as her weapon. If the woman hesitated to charge and fight in the heat of conflict, the husband flogged her back to prod her forward. When a woman soldier was killed in battle, her breasts were often severed by the enemy as a war prize.
Adomnán personally witnessed the mangled bodies of dead women warriors when he and his mother Ronnat visited a battlefield following a vicious encounter between two armies. A Medieval source records that “they saw nothing more touching and pitiful than the head of a woman in one place and the body in another, and her little babe upon the breasts of the corpse, a stream of milk upon one of its cheeks, and a stream of blood upon the other.”
Both Adomnán and his mother saw the dire need to intervene, with Ronnat giving her son this charge: “to thee henceforth it is given to free the women of the western world.” Compelled to action, Adomnán drafted “The Law of the Innocents” which was enacted at the Synod of Birr in the year 697, with ninety-one signatories from Ireland and Britain lending their support to the edict. Among other provisions, the law stipulated that if “women be employed in an assault or in a host or fight,” those in whose army they served were to be fined seven cumals (equivalent to the value of twenty-one milk cows) for each woman they compelled to take up arms in battle.
Adomnán’s legal reform was a masterstroke which led to women being protected in war, rather than exploited as the sacrificial first line of combat.
The Chivalric Code: Women Must Be Protected
As Christianity continued to transform Europe, codes of chivalry emerged which made the protection of women and the weaker members of society a chief aim. The Knights Codes of Chivalry, recorded in The Song of Roland, was adopted approximately one hundred years after Adomnán and is Europe’s first known chivalric code to be preserved. Of the seventeen tenets of this code, three require the aiding and protecting of women: (1) To protect the weak and defenceless; (2) To give succour to widows and orphans; (3) To respect the honor of women.
The codes of chivalry that followed this standard enacted during Charlemagne’s time incorporated similar provisions. The later Ordene de chevalerie, a widely popular French work which was likely composed before 1250, stipulated that knights “must honour all women and damsels and be ready to aid them to the limit of [their] power.”[6]
In the Medieval world, men — not women — took up arms and fought wars, while women were honored and protected as the weaker vessel. Rather than being placed on the front lines of combat, they were secured behind the lines of battle to ensure their safety and well-being.
The Biblical Foundation: Men, Not Women, Go to War
The world of knights protecting fair maidens did not flow from a backwards, unenlightened romanticism, but was based squarely on the precepts and patterns found in God’s Word.
Scripture stipulates that men are to take up arms in combat, while women are to be shielded from the horrors of battle. A prime example of this is found in the Book of Joshua, when the Reubenites, Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh were called upon to help the other tribes conquer the land of Canaan, even as they were granted land beyond its boundaries, east of the Jordan River. Joshua’s directions to these three tribes make plain how a civilized people is to approach war:
Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valour, and help them. (Joshua 1:14)
A census that Moses conducted a generation earlier illustrates that able men, not women, are to go to war:
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (Numbers 1:2-3)
The term “men of war” is used thirty-six times in the Bible and clearly indicates that those of the male rather than the female gender are to march in battle, as when Israel circled the walls of Jericho. “And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days” (Joshua 6:3).
The Bible also provides examples of men taking steps to protect women when hostile parties threatened, with the men hazarding their lives on their behalf. One of the most poignant illustrations of this is found in the Book of Genesis, as Jacob was preparing to meet his brother Esau. Fearing that Esau’s band would slaughter “the mother with the children” (Genesis 32:11), Jacob positioned his wives and young ones to the rear of his party, while he lead from the front (Genesis 33:1-3).
The most significant example of all time of male sacrifice for women was modeled by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus suffered the scourge of torture, humiliation, and ultimately death to save His bride, the Church, and men in all ages are admonished to follow His lead (Ephesians 5:25).
America the Barbarous: A Call to Repentance
Our nation’s abandonment of biblical principles has led women to be devalued rather than cherished. As opposed to reacting with shame and outrage at the prospect of women facing the horrors of frontline combat, as Adomnán did 1,300 years ago, the majority of Americans are celebrating the placement of our sisters and daughters in the heat of battle as a triumph of women’s rights. Far from being “enlightened” concerning warfare, twentieth-first century America has become a nation of barbarians.
President Obama’s words — made on the day his administration announced that hundreds of thousands of combat roles would be opened for women — reflect the attitude of much of our nation’s populous: “Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.”[7]
In last week’s State of the Union address, the President took the occasion to trumpet this policy change to an estimated 33.5 million viewers, stating that “our sisters and daughters . . . are ready for combat.”[8]
What should be sounding instead is a lament. The weeping prophet Jeremiah offers mournful words fit for the occasion: “Mine eye runneth down with rivers of water for the destruction of the daughter of my people. Mine eye trickleth down, and ceaseth not, without any intermission . . .” (Lamentations 3:48-49).
While all life is precious in God’s sight, we have erred in concluding that the death of G.I. Jane in combat is no more terrible than the death of G.I. Joe. Women should not be placed in harm’s way to defend our nation, and rather than celebrate what should be mourned, we should cry out to God to humble our hearts in repentance.
Only then will the scales be lifted from our eyes and our hearts be made tender to protect the weaker sex.
[1] Chris Good, Mary Bruce, and Luis Martinez, “Military Warned to Maintain Readiness as Women Move Toward Combat,” ABCNews.com, January 24, 2013.
[2] Dexter Filkins,“A Routine Burst of Chaos Leaves a G.I. Wounded,” New York Times, May 26, 2004.
[3] “Broad Support for Combat Roles for Women,” Pew Research Center, released January 29, 2013.
[4] David S. Cloud and Tony Perry, “Military to lift ban on women in combat,” Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2013.
[5] This discussion of Adomnán’s reforms is derived from original Medieval sources as recorded in: the Kuno Meyer, Editor and Translator, Medieval Sourcebook: Cain Adamnain: An Old-Irish Treatise on the Law of Adamnan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905).
[6] Maurice Keen, Chivalry, originally published in 1984 by Yale University. Citation taken from the Folio Society’s deluxe edition (London: The Folio Society, 2010), pp. 7-10.
[7] David Jackson, “Obama backs women in combat,” USA Today, January 24, 2013.
[8] A full transcript of President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address can be accessedhere .
[2] Dexter Filkins,“A Routine Burst of Chaos Leaves a G.I. Wounded,” New York Times, May 26, 2004.
[3] “Broad Support for Combat Roles for Women,” Pew Research Center, released January 29, 2013.
[4] David S. Cloud and Tony Perry, “Military to lift ban on women in combat,” Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2013.
[5] This discussion of Adomnán’s reforms is derived from original Medieval sources as recorded in: the Kuno Meyer, Editor and Translator, Medieval Sourcebook: Cain Adamnain: An Old-Irish Treatise on the Law of Adamnan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905).
[6] Maurice Keen, Chivalry, originally published in 1984 by Yale University. Citation taken from the Folio Society’s deluxe edition (London: The Folio Society, 2010), pp. 7-10.
[7] David Jackson, “Obama backs women in combat,” USA Today, January 24, 2013.
[8] A full transcript of President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address can be accessedhere .
Originally Posted at http://www.visionforumministries.org
Thursday, June 7, 2012
The Problem With Education: We Don’t Know What it Means, But the Government Does
I read a quote from G.K. Chesterton that prompted this post:
“The most important fact about the subject of education is that there is no such thing. Education is not a subject, and it does not deal in subjects. It is instead the transfer of a way of life.” -G.K. Chesterton
We believe that “education” is the transference of knowledge. And so we argue over who is best qualified to transfer knowledge so our children will be properly educated. When actually, knowledge is only a small part of a total education.
The question we should be asking is, “Who is qualified to ‘transfer a way of life’to my children?” and “What ‘way of life’ matters to me?”
For example, who is teaching my child that he is fearfully and wonderfully made (as is his neighbor), foundational to who he is, who he will become and how he will live out his purpose? Or, is he being taught that since there is no Creator, life doesn’t have intrinsic value? Even this one part of our children’s worldview radically affects the life-choices they’ll make.
Who is teaching her that application of knowledge is more important than a letter that grades short-term memory? Who is taking her by the hand, showing her the world and how everything is related to everything else? Who is telling her that “wisdom calls out” and that she is equipped to search for and find it on her own?
Who is telling him that everyone has different strengths? That he can run with his brilliance as an artist and not be labeled if he doesn’t demonstrate equal ability in math?
Is it good enough for someone else–something else–to shape the very life of my children, their opinions, beliefs, values and self-worth?
I have long maintained that education can not be “neutral”. Assuming that education is, indeed, a transfer of a way of life, this fact becomes more obvious.Every institution, whether family, school, church or other, imparts a belief system where something or someone determines the values inherent to that system.
Unfortunately, founders of the modern system of education understood this well–that education shapes people, not just teaches them the three R’s. Those like John Dewey voiced his intention to use the classroom to erode any faith except the religion of humanism*. And largely, under the guise of “learning”, Christians regularly submit their children to the transferring of a way of lifeby a system that rejects most of their core values and beliefs.
As a Christian, submitted to the lordship of Christ, I am bound to “transfer a way of life” to my children that is wholly consumed with Him. Education, means then, to a Christian, that all facets of life–including the small one of imparting knowledge–must spring from an inherently Christian worldview–a transferring of life, lived out each day in a thousand ways.
Education: It’s so much more than academics! Let’s not pluck this small part out and make it an idol while neglecting what it means to prepare children for ALL of life.
* “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity,together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.” Humanist Manifesto
Originally Posted at www.generationcedar.com
Thursday, May 17, 2012
10 Ways For Mom's To Respect Their Sons
By jen Smidt
START EARLY
It is never too early to start showing that you respect your sons. I know as a young mom I was so concerned about discipline—when, where, why and how to discipline. I wanted this bundle of boy contained into a well-behaved, manageable package. Is that offense punishable by swat? Is he disrespecting me? Why is he so loud and messy? While those are fine questions to ask, looking back, I would rather have spent more time asking myself if I was treating my boys with respect.
My sons thrive in our relationship when respect is generously given. If I want them to look for a wife who respects them one day, I better demonstrate what that looks like now.
WHAT IS RESPECT?
Let me first say respect is not making my son an idol and bowing down to his every need. Respect is defined as a deep admiration for someone elicited by his or her abilities, qualities, or achievements. A mother’s respect is also not based upon her son’s achievements at the beginning (unless you count squirting her in the eye with confounding accuracy at diaper changing time).
“
If our boys are continually being shielded from natural consequences, they will have a distorted sense of self and sin.”
A mother’s respect for her son is founded upon his image bearing of her heavenly Father and belief that God has given her a powerful gift to steward for a season. A mother’s respect is born out of respect for Jesus and the cross: his life makes my life and my son’s life possible. A mother’s respect is based upon her trust in God to develop a godly man, husband, father, and leader out of the tiny one that she holds but for a brief moment.
WHAT RESPECT LOOKS LIKE
I wanted to offer some practical principles to help show what it looks like for a mom to respect her son.
1. SET JESUS AS THE STANDARD
There is no man other than Jesus who demonstrates perfection. You will never go wrong in upholding him as the source, pointing to him as the example, and depending upon him for the answers.
2. PRAY FOR THEM AND OVER THEM
You aren’t in control of their lives, you never will be. What better time than now to put yourself in submission to God’s plan for your sons by releasing them in prayer? Mothers have an awesome responsibility to pray for the intimate details that she knows about her son’s heart.
3. WATCH YOUR TONE
Respect is often given and destroyed in the little things. I know the look in my son’s eye when I speak to him with a harsh or shaming tone—it is the pain of disrespect. Speak graciously, kindly, and firmly to your sons.
4. LET THEM MAKE DECISIONS
Start small with choices like red or blue shirt, and move to increasing responsibility over time management and bigger life choices. Give them opportunities to lead in your home: chores, devotions, and family nights can be planned and executed by sons growing in maturity.
5. SERVE THEM
Love them with food, fun, folding of laundry. Let them see that you are willing to sacrificially serve them. Teach them to be grateful and one day they may actually thank you.
6. TEACH THEM TO SERVE YOU
Respectable men serve others. Servanthood does not come naturally to most of us. As you cheerfully serve your son, make sure you instruct and involve them in active service also. There will come a time when it is no longer sacrificial but sinful for you to be folding your boy’s undies.
7. NO SECRETS
Hidden sin is an insidious trap for men. Cultivate a climate of open confession and generous forgiveness. It is much more powerful for your son to feel like he can freely confess sin than have to hide in fear of your reaction.
8. NAME SIN BIBLICALLY
Do not fall into “Boys will be boys” thinking. Differentiate between childish foolishness and downright rebellion. Instruct the former and correct the latter. Name their sin with accurate descriptions from Scripture so they can repent.
9. NAME CHARACTER BIBLICALLY
Read to them and have them study passages of Scripture that speak to men (1 Cor. 16:13-14). Have them memorize passages of Scripture that describes their identity and riches available to them in Christ (Ephesians 1) so they can rejoice.
10. LET CONSEQUENCES FALL ON THEIR HEADS
Respectable men recognize the painful effects of sin. If our boys are continually being shielded from natural consequences, they will have a distorted sense of self and sin. Let them feel the pain of their sin coupled with the restorative effects of grace.
Mothers, respect your sons. Give them this gift early on and by God’s grace, they will grow in respectability and become the godly men we recognized in them from the start.
Originally Posted at www.TheResurgence.com
Monday, March 12, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Atheist Richard Dawkins: "Evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right"
Last month, famous atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Howard Condor on Revelation TV in the UK. Parts of the interview are disappointing regarding how the interviewer made some of his arguments. However, there was one section of the interview that is really worth publicizing.
At one stage, the interviewer asked, “So, was there a defining moment where you made a decision that you didn’t believe in God?”
Richard Dawkins replied, “Yes . . . I suppose, I switched from Christian theism to some sort of deism about the age of fourteen or fifteen. And then switched to atheism about the age of sixteen—fifteen, sixteen.”
Howard Condor then asks, “And was there a particular point, or something you read, or an experience you had that said, ‘Yes this is it, God does not exist’?”
Now note carefully the following statement by Richard Dawkins:
Oh well, by far the most important was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen.
I want you to note two things in particular:
1.For Richard Dawkins, who professes to be an atheist, evolution is his justification for rejecting the God of the Bible.
2.Richard Dawkins understands the Bible’s account of origins more than many theologians. He does see that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the Bible and evolution. In fact, in other statements he has made in books and interviews, Dawkins says that the next step for these theologians is to reject the Bible totally. He applauds the theologians for believing in evolution, but he says “the writing is on the wall”—meaning that the next step is to realize the Bible can’t be true.
It is so sad that compromise with evolution and millions of years permeates the church and Christian colleges. For atheists like Richard Dawkins, this is a good thing because he understands that compromise will cause coming generations to eventually walk away from the church, which is exactly what is already happening.
The new publication Already Compromised (released around May 1) details research conducted by American’s Research Group on Christian colleges, showing rampant compromise through many of these institutions.
It’s a shame so many of our Christian academics don’t understand the Bible as much as Dawkins does on this issue of the Bible and evolution!
You can preorder a copy of Already Compromised.
( http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/sku/10-1-489 )
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken
Originally Posted @ http://www.blogs.answersingenesis.org/ By Ken Ham
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Easily Offended?
Are you easily offended? God can work on that. But at least we should be quick to forgive.
Ken Sande (The Peacemaker, p. 83), suggests that overlooking an offense is appropriate under two conditions.
First, the offense should not have created a wall between you and the other person or caused you to feel differently toward him or her for more than a short period of time.
Second the offense should not be causing serious harm to God’s reputation, to others, or to the offender. . . .
He explains that overlooking is active, not passive:
Overlooking is not a passive process in which you simply remain silent for the moment but file away the offense for later use against someone. That is actually a form of denial that can easily lead to brooding over the offense and building up internal bitterness and resentment that will eventually explode in anger.
Instead, overlooking is an active process that is inspired by God’s mercy through the gospel. To truly overlook an offense means to deliberately decide not to talk about it, dwell on it, or let it grow into pent-up bitterness.
If you cannot let go of an offense in this way, if it is too serious to overlook, or if it continues as part of a pattern in the other person’s life, then you will need to go and talk to the other person about it in a loving and constructive manner.
Proverbs 19:11: “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.”
Proverbs 17:14: “The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out.”
1 Peter 4:8: “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.”
Colossians 3:13: “bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.”
On a related issue, see Kevin DeYoung’s excellent post today (you can find on this blog see previous post), “Distinguishing Marks of a Quarrelsome Person.”
Ken Sande (The Peacemaker, p. 83), suggests that overlooking an offense is appropriate under two conditions.
First, the offense should not have created a wall between you and the other person or caused you to feel differently toward him or her for more than a short period of time.
Second the offense should not be causing serious harm to God’s reputation, to others, or to the offender. . . .
He explains that overlooking is active, not passive:
Overlooking is not a passive process in which you simply remain silent for the moment but file away the offense for later use against someone. That is actually a form of denial that can easily lead to brooding over the offense and building up internal bitterness and resentment that will eventually explode in anger.
Instead, overlooking is an active process that is inspired by God’s mercy through the gospel. To truly overlook an offense means to deliberately decide not to talk about it, dwell on it, or let it grow into pent-up bitterness.
If you cannot let go of an offense in this way, if it is too serious to overlook, or if it continues as part of a pattern in the other person’s life, then you will need to go and talk to the other person about it in a loving and constructive manner.
Proverbs 19:11: “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.”
Proverbs 17:14: “The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out.”
1 Peter 4:8: “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.”
Colossians 3:13: “bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.”
On a related issue, see Kevin DeYoung’s excellent post today (you can find on this blog see previous post), “Distinguishing Marks of a Quarrelsome Person.”
Originally Posted @ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/
Friday, February 18, 2011
Husbands: Headship Means Taking the Lead in Reconciliation
John Piper:
Leadership means we must take the lead in reconciliation.
I don’t mean that wives should never say they are sorry.
But in the relation between Christ and his church, who took the initiative to make all things new?
I don’t mean that wives should never say they are sorry.
But in the relation between Christ and his church, who took the initiative to make all things new?
Who left the comfort and security of his throne of justice to put mercy to work at Calvary?
Who came back to Peter first after three denials?
Who has returned to you again and again forgiving you and offering his fellowship afresh?
So husbands, your headship means: Go ahead. Take the lead. It does not matter if it is her fault.
That didn’t stop Christ.
Who will break the icy silence first?
Who will choke out the words, “I’m sorry, I want it to be better”?
Or: “Can we talk? I’d like things to be better.”
She might beat you to it. That’s okay.
But woe to you if you think that, since it’s her fault, she’s obliged to say the first reconciling word.
Headship is not easy. It is the hardest, most humbling work in the world.
Protect your family. Strive, as much as it lies within you, to make peace before the sun goes down.
Who came back to Peter first after three denials?
Who has returned to you again and again forgiving you and offering his fellowship afresh?
So husbands, your headship means: Go ahead. Take the lead. It does not matter if it is her fault.
That didn’t stop Christ.
Who will break the icy silence first?
Who will choke out the words, “I’m sorry, I want it to be better”?
Or: “Can we talk? I’d like things to be better.”
She might beat you to it. That’s okay.
But woe to you if you think that, since it’s her fault, she’s obliged to say the first reconciling word.
Headship is not easy. It is the hardest, most humbling work in the world.
Protect your family. Strive, as much as it lies within you, to make peace before the sun goes down.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Why John Piper Doesn’t Own a TV
John Piper is known for many things. . . .
Some would likely mention the fact that he’s never owned a television! I vividly remember my first visit to John’s home in 1992. He had invited me to speak at his annual pastor’s conference which, as it turns out, is regularly scheduled during the week following the Super Bowl. Upon arriving at his home after the Sunday service, I told John that I had been looking forward for quite some time to watching the game with him. “Not at my house,” he said. “We don’t have a TV.” After I recovered from the initial shock, John graciously agreed to take me to the home of a church member where I could indulge myself in this annual affair. And yes, John stayed and actually watched the game!
Some would likely mention the fact that he’s never owned a television! I vividly remember my first visit to John’s home in 1992. He had invited me to speak at his annual pastor’s conference which, as it turns out, is regularly scheduled during the week following the Super Bowl. Upon arriving at his home after the Sunday service, I told John that I had been looking forward for quite some time to watching the game with him. “Not at my house,” he said. “We don’t have a TV.” After I recovered from the initial shock, John graciously agreed to take me to the home of a church member where I could indulge myself in this annual affair. And yes, John stayed and actually watched the game!
Read the rest of the article here: http://andynaselli.com/why-john-piper-doesnt-own-a-tv
Monday, January 24, 2011
Know Your Heretics: Nestorius
Justin Holcomb Director of the Resurgence
Know Your Heretics series
John Calvin said in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that Nestorius “devised a double Christ!”
The early church taught that Jesus Christ was one person with two natures: a divine nature and a human nature.
Nestorius (c. 381-451) was a monk from Antioch before he became the bishop of Constantinople in 428. He so emphasized the two natures that Nestorius basically turned Jesus Christ into two persons. Wanting to avoid any “mixing” of the divine and human natures of Christ (as Eutyches did), Nestorius over-emphasized their distinctness.
He argued that there are places in the Gospels where the human nature of Jesus is being described, and others where his divine nature is the subject. In doing this, it seems as if Nestorius has made two persons exist in Christ—two acting subjects, two “he’s".
Christ is two natures in one person
Cyril of Alexandria was the main proponent of orthodox theology in response to Nestorius. Cyril condemned Nestorius’ stance of two subjects present in Christ because it meant there were also two persons—a human and a divine—present in Christ. In response to Nestorius’ position, Cyril wrote: “If any one distributes between two characters or persons the expressions used about Christ in the gospels, etc…applying some to the man, conceived of separately, apart from the Word, others exclusively to the Word, let him be anathema.”
“Nestorius’ under-emphasis of the unity between the two natures of Christ is dangerous because Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and humanity.
”Both the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) condemned Nestorius. He claimed later that he was simply misunderstood and he believed in Christ’s two natures in one person.
Stephen Nichols notes of the Chalcedonian Creed, “In affirming Christ as two natures in one person, the Creed repudiates directly and explicitly the teachings of Apollinarius, Eutyches, and Nestorius…Against Nestorius, the Creed holds Christ to be two natures in one person without division or separation. It denies that Christ is two persons, two ‘he’s.’” [1]
Why the unity of Jesus matters
Nestorius’ under-emphasis of the unity between the two natures of Christ is dangerous because Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and humanity.
This unity of the one person of Jesus Christ is called the hypostatic union. It is important that we get this union right—Jesus Christ is the God-man. It is precisely in the unity of the person of Jesus Christ and his sinless life, death, and resurrection that God reconciles lost humans with his perfect self.
Two natures, without separation
A disjoining of the two natures would result in a failure in the means of Christians’ salvation. This is why the Chalcedonian Creed says, “our Lord Jesus Christ...for us men and for our salvation…[is] recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated in two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.” [2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For Us and Our Salvation [2] Documents of the Christian Church
Originally Posted By Justin Holcolmb from http://www.theresurgence.com/
Friday, December 31, 2010
A Sad Day for The Assemblies of God Denomination
Posted on September 8th 2010 by Ken Ham
The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc):
The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
Whatever creation theory we individually may prefer, we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation.
(“The Doctrine of Creation,” 2010, http://ag.org/top/beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Doctrine_of_Creation.pdf)
The following is an excerpt from AG’s 1977 position paper on “The Doctrine of Creation”:
This Bible record of creation thus rules out the evolutionary philosophy which states that all forms of life have come into being by gradual, progressive evolution carried on by resident forces. It also rules out any evolutionary origin for the human race, since no theory of evolution, including theistic evolution, can explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could evolve into a woman.
(“The Doctrine of Creation,” 1977, http://ministers.ag.org/pdf/Creation.pdf, accessed 11/8/10)
What is sad to notice is this 2010 revision of such a strong statement about creation. The following is their statement on creation from the Assemblies of God website that was based on the 1977 position paper (that we presume will be modified to now fit their 2010 statement):
Why does the Assemblies of God hold a strong position on creationism? Could the evolution theory or portions of it fit into the Bible’s account of creation? Also, why is our origin so important?
The Assemblies of God has a deep commitment to creationism-that God is the Author and Creator of all life (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 121:2; 124:8; 146:5,6; Isaiah 40:26,28; 1 Peter 4:19). By the power of His Word, He created everything out of nothing (Hebrews 11:3). The visible was created out of the invisible, the material out of the nonmaterial, and the tangible out of the intangible.
However, by what means was His creative work accomplished? More specifically, did God employ a gradual process by which the world came into being? Did higher forms of life progress from lower forms of life? The advocates of gradual process are called theistic evolutionists. For them, God’s creative days recorded in Genesis may well have been eons of time.
Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally. Admittedly, there is progression in God’s creative work. But each step was concluded: “And there was evening, and there was morning.” This points to a specific measurement of time. The most natural reading of the creation account therefore is to place it in parallel with a 7-day week. By doing so, the burden of determining time frames and development for various components of creation is avoided. Furthermore such a literal view of God’s creation process requires no more faith than theories of science-that our world evolved to its current state by the accidental collision of molecules.
For Christians, the question of origin is most critical. If mankind has merely evolved from lower forms of life, one cannot possess the special imprint of God’s likeness (Genesis 1:27; 2:7). If all of life is but the result of natural forces as told through various strains of evolution, it then becomes impossible to understand and know God through His creation.
Ultimately for most Christians it comes to this: if God is not Author and Creator of all that is, life offers little meaning or purpose for mankind. In evolution there is no judgment, and therefore no punishment or reward for the way we live. Through the view of evolution, lifestyle choices don’t matter. Instead life and creation simply evolve. But from the view of creationism, recognizing God’s handiwork and order, life takes on great meaning and renders significant eternal reward. (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm)
Actually, the difference between the 1977 AG statement on creation and the revised 2010 statement reflects the battle that has been raging ever since events from Genesis 3 took place. In Genesis 3, Satan tempted Eve by getting her to doubt God’s Word. Eve was asked, “Did God Really Say?” The apostle Paul warns us in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that Satan will use the same method on us as he did on Eve—to get us to a position of unbelief regarding God’s Word. What Satan was doing was getting Adam and Eve to question God’s Word, and to act as “gods.” In essence, Adam and Eve decided to make fallible man the authority over God’s Word, instead of judging everything against the absolute authority of God’s Word.
In the statement based on the 1977 paper, the Assemblies of God state, “The most natural reading of the creation account . . . ” And when a person reads this account, it is taken as the Word of God in Genesis as written, and we let God speak through his Word—and do not compromise the days of creation or the creation account with evolution. Obviously back in the 1970s, the AG was stating that we cannot take man’s ideas and reinterpret God’s Word. Amen!
Then note the major change in the 2010 revision. Now the Assemblies of God statement reads, “The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists . . . ”
In other words, they have now succumbed to the view—prevalent in the church today—that is undermining the authority of God’s Word, and ultimately is significantly contributing to the collapse of Christianity in our Western world. The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.
In our best-selling book Already Gone, we publicized the results of the statistically powerful research conducted by America’s Research Group on why two-thirds of young people are leaving the church when they reach college age. The bottom line is that the research showed that the children, at a young age, were already succumbing to doubts about God’s Word; the main reasons for this is because of what they are being taught at school (most went to public schools), the church is not teaching apologetics (i.e., teaching a defense of the faith, and teaching them how to answer skeptical questions), and many church leaders tell them they can believe in millions of years (and also evolution), thus compromising God’s Word. The young people see this as “hypocrisy” (church leaders telling them to believe the Bible, but then telling them they don’t have to take it as written in Genesis for instance), and thus, most of them end up walking away from their church.
The Hillsong Connection
One of the most influential pastors in the Assemblies of God denomination is Pastor Brian Houston of Hillsong in Australia. (He is a leader of the Assemblies of God denomination in Australia.) Many churches around the world use the worship music that comes out of Hillsong; thus, Brian Houston is extremely influential in the Assemblies of God denomination worldwide. After I happened to see a video on television where he was teaching that one certainly didn’t have to take the six days of creation as ordinary days, I decided to research any printed statements of his on the topic of Genesis/creation. Here is a statement, which sadly, exhibits the same compromise wording consistent with the Assemblies of God’s 2010 revised statement on creation.
Pastor Brian Houston, Hillsong Church Australia, stated the following in an interview:
I believe in creation. The Bible starts in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If I waver on the first 10 words of the Bible I think I’m going to have problems properly representing the rest of the Bible. However, timeframes, over what period of time that was, whether there was room for any evolving in some areas of life as well, I’m more than open to that. I’m happy to leave that to the experts.
(http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13665/hillsong-church-interview-with-brian-houston)
There is a transcript of interview at this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2005/s1427560.htm
This statement certainly allows for fallible man’s beliefs (the millions of years/evolutionary ideas of the secularists) to be in authority over God’s Word. His declaration opens the door to reinterpret the clear reading of Genesis, as long as one just believes God is Creator. I find so often the statement in the church that as long as one believes God is Creator, how God created or how one takes the rest of the creation account in Genesis doesn’t matter. However, this is a major problem within the church that must be recognized in this era of history. Many church leaders are prepared to take Genesis 1:1 as it is written, but much of the rest of Genesis chapters 1–11 are reinterpret based upon what is called “science,” which means in reality that one takes man’s fallible beliefs about the past concerning millions of years and evolution and reinterprets God’s Word to fit with these beliefs.
The Assemblies of God denomination needs to be challenged. For all the mega-churches in the world, and for all the praise and worship that goes on in churches, our Western world is collapsing from a Christian worldview perspective. Whether it is England, all of Europe, Canada, or Australia (and it is happening in the USA), the Christian worldview is collapsing and church attendance declining. Increasing number of of the next generation are walking away from the church.
What is happening is that church leaders are succumbing to the pagan religion of the age! Yes, millions of years and evolution are part of the pagan religion of this age to explain life without God. As they succumb to this pagan religion and compromise God’s Word, wittingly or unwittingly, Christian leaders are undermining the authority of the Word.
But it’s even more than this!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
Who is the Word? The Word is Jesus Christ. When one puts fallible man’s ideas over the Word of God, then one is not just undermining the Word of God, but actually attacking the Son of God. We can only know the Father through the Son, and we know the Son through the Word. To compromise the Word of God is a very serious matter indeed.
I trust the Assemblies of God will repent of their revised statement on creation that has now opened the door to compromise with man’s ideas—with the pagan religion of this age. If the denomination continues to go down this path, generations will continue to leave the church and the culture will continue to destruct as the Christian worldview is undermined. It’s not numbers at churches or praise songs around the world that count, but whether one is faithful to the Word of God.
Now having said that, I do know there are pastors in this AG denomination who are horrified at the revised statement and take the stand they should on the historicity of Genesis. We pray they will be able to challenge the leaders in this denomination to shut the door to such compromise.
However, movements like Hillsong (that now have churches in a number of large cities), and any denomination that does not stand on biblical authority from the first book of the Bible as they should (and has opened the door to compromise biblical authority as we see in the above item), we will continue to see massive changes in a generation or two as the culture continues to decline from a Christian perspective—and sadly, as young people continue to leave the church.
Devotion
It shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days
(Deuteronomy 17:19) And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them
We read the Bible everyday so that we relearn to fear the Lord Jesus Christ and to obey Him—the Bible defuses worldly terror and displaces worldly thoughts.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken
The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc):
The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
Whatever creation theory we individually may prefer, we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation.
(“The Doctrine of Creation,” 2010, http://ag.org/top/beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Doctrine_of_Creation.pdf)
The following is an excerpt from AG’s 1977 position paper on “The Doctrine of Creation”:
This Bible record of creation thus rules out the evolutionary philosophy which states that all forms of life have come into being by gradual, progressive evolution carried on by resident forces. It also rules out any evolutionary origin for the human race, since no theory of evolution, including theistic evolution, can explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could evolve into a woman.
(“The Doctrine of Creation,” 1977, http://ministers.ag.org/pdf/Creation.pdf, accessed 11/8/10)
What is sad to notice is this 2010 revision of such a strong statement about creation. The following is their statement on creation from the Assemblies of God website that was based on the 1977 position paper (that we presume will be modified to now fit their 2010 statement):
Why does the Assemblies of God hold a strong position on creationism? Could the evolution theory or portions of it fit into the Bible’s account of creation? Also, why is our origin so important?
The Assemblies of God has a deep commitment to creationism-that God is the Author and Creator of all life (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 121:2; 124:8; 146:5,6; Isaiah 40:26,28; 1 Peter 4:19). By the power of His Word, He created everything out of nothing (Hebrews 11:3). The visible was created out of the invisible, the material out of the nonmaterial, and the tangible out of the intangible.
However, by what means was His creative work accomplished? More specifically, did God employ a gradual process by which the world came into being? Did higher forms of life progress from lower forms of life? The advocates of gradual process are called theistic evolutionists. For them, God’s creative days recorded in Genesis may well have been eons of time.
Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally. Admittedly, there is progression in God’s creative work. But each step was concluded: “And there was evening, and there was morning.” This points to a specific measurement of time. The most natural reading of the creation account therefore is to place it in parallel with a 7-day week. By doing so, the burden of determining time frames and development for various components of creation is avoided. Furthermore such a literal view of God’s creation process requires no more faith than theories of science-that our world evolved to its current state by the accidental collision of molecules.
For Christians, the question of origin is most critical. If mankind has merely evolved from lower forms of life, one cannot possess the special imprint of God’s likeness (Genesis 1:27; 2:7). If all of life is but the result of natural forces as told through various strains of evolution, it then becomes impossible to understand and know God through His creation.
Ultimately for most Christians it comes to this: if God is not Author and Creator of all that is, life offers little meaning or purpose for mankind. In evolution there is no judgment, and therefore no punishment or reward for the way we live. Through the view of evolution, lifestyle choices don’t matter. Instead life and creation simply evolve. But from the view of creationism, recognizing God’s handiwork and order, life takes on great meaning and renders significant eternal reward. (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm)
Actually, the difference between the 1977 AG statement on creation and the revised 2010 statement reflects the battle that has been raging ever since events from Genesis 3 took place. In Genesis 3, Satan tempted Eve by getting her to doubt God’s Word. Eve was asked, “Did God Really Say?” The apostle Paul warns us in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that Satan will use the same method on us as he did on Eve—to get us to a position of unbelief regarding God’s Word. What Satan was doing was getting Adam and Eve to question God’s Word, and to act as “gods.” In essence, Adam and Eve decided to make fallible man the authority over God’s Word, instead of judging everything against the absolute authority of God’s Word.
In the statement based on the 1977 paper, the Assemblies of God state, “The most natural reading of the creation account . . . ” And when a person reads this account, it is taken as the Word of God in Genesis as written, and we let God speak through his Word—and do not compromise the days of creation or the creation account with evolution. Obviously back in the 1970s, the AG was stating that we cannot take man’s ideas and reinterpret God’s Word. Amen!
Then note the major change in the 2010 revision. Now the Assemblies of God statement reads, “The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists . . . ”
In other words, they have now succumbed to the view—prevalent in the church today—that is undermining the authority of God’s Word, and ultimately is significantly contributing to the collapse of Christianity in our Western world. The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.
In our best-selling book Already Gone, we publicized the results of the statistically powerful research conducted by America’s Research Group on why two-thirds of young people are leaving the church when they reach college age. The bottom line is that the research showed that the children, at a young age, were already succumbing to doubts about God’s Word; the main reasons for this is because of what they are being taught at school (most went to public schools), the church is not teaching apologetics (i.e., teaching a defense of the faith, and teaching them how to answer skeptical questions), and many church leaders tell them they can believe in millions of years (and also evolution), thus compromising God’s Word. The young people see this as “hypocrisy” (church leaders telling them to believe the Bible, but then telling them they don’t have to take it as written in Genesis for instance), and thus, most of them end up walking away from their church.
The Hillsong Connection
One of the most influential pastors in the Assemblies of God denomination is Pastor Brian Houston of Hillsong in Australia. (He is a leader of the Assemblies of God denomination in Australia.) Many churches around the world use the worship music that comes out of Hillsong; thus, Brian Houston is extremely influential in the Assemblies of God denomination worldwide. After I happened to see a video on television where he was teaching that one certainly didn’t have to take the six days of creation as ordinary days, I decided to research any printed statements of his on the topic of Genesis/creation. Here is a statement, which sadly, exhibits the same compromise wording consistent with the Assemblies of God’s 2010 revised statement on creation.
Pastor Brian Houston, Hillsong Church Australia, stated the following in an interview:
I believe in creation. The Bible starts in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If I waver on the first 10 words of the Bible I think I’m going to have problems properly representing the rest of the Bible. However, timeframes, over what period of time that was, whether there was room for any evolving in some areas of life as well, I’m more than open to that. I’m happy to leave that to the experts.
(http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13665/hillsong-church-interview-with-brian-houston)
There is a transcript of interview at this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2005/s1427560.htm
This statement certainly allows for fallible man’s beliefs (the millions of years/evolutionary ideas of the secularists) to be in authority over God’s Word. His declaration opens the door to reinterpret the clear reading of Genesis, as long as one just believes God is Creator. I find so often the statement in the church that as long as one believes God is Creator, how God created or how one takes the rest of the creation account in Genesis doesn’t matter. However, this is a major problem within the church that must be recognized in this era of history. Many church leaders are prepared to take Genesis 1:1 as it is written, but much of the rest of Genesis chapters 1–11 are reinterpret based upon what is called “science,” which means in reality that one takes man’s fallible beliefs about the past concerning millions of years and evolution and reinterprets God’s Word to fit with these beliefs.
The Assemblies of God denomination needs to be challenged. For all the mega-churches in the world, and for all the praise and worship that goes on in churches, our Western world is collapsing from a Christian worldview perspective. Whether it is England, all of Europe, Canada, or Australia (and it is happening in the USA), the Christian worldview is collapsing and church attendance declining. Increasing number of of the next generation are walking away from the church.
What is happening is that church leaders are succumbing to the pagan religion of the age! Yes, millions of years and evolution are part of the pagan religion of this age to explain life without God. As they succumb to this pagan religion and compromise God’s Word, wittingly or unwittingly, Christian leaders are undermining the authority of the Word.
But it’s even more than this!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
Who is the Word? The Word is Jesus Christ. When one puts fallible man’s ideas over the Word of God, then one is not just undermining the Word of God, but actually attacking the Son of God. We can only know the Father through the Son, and we know the Son through the Word. To compromise the Word of God is a very serious matter indeed.
I trust the Assemblies of God will repent of their revised statement on creation that has now opened the door to compromise with man’s ideas—with the pagan religion of this age. If the denomination continues to go down this path, generations will continue to leave the church and the culture will continue to destruct as the Christian worldview is undermined. It’s not numbers at churches or praise songs around the world that count, but whether one is faithful to the Word of God.
Now having said that, I do know there are pastors in this AG denomination who are horrified at the revised statement and take the stand they should on the historicity of Genesis. We pray they will be able to challenge the leaders in this denomination to shut the door to such compromise.
However, movements like Hillsong (that now have churches in a number of large cities), and any denomination that does not stand on biblical authority from the first book of the Bible as they should (and has opened the door to compromise biblical authority as we see in the above item), we will continue to see massive changes in a generation or two as the culture continues to decline from a Christian perspective—and sadly, as young people continue to leave the church.
Devotion
It shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days
(Deuteronomy 17:19) And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them
We read the Bible everyday so that we relearn to fear the Lord Jesus Christ and to obey Him—the Bible defuses worldly terror and displaces worldly thoughts.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken
Originally Posted at http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/
Essential Books From & About Church History
The Resurgence list of Essential Books From & About Church History.
(Last week, I posted The list from your fellow brothers sisters in Christ)
(Last week, I posted The list from your fellow brothers sisters in Christ)
CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE ROUTED TO THE RESURGENCE WEBSITE AND VIEW THE LIST
Know Your Heretics: Mani
Justin Holcomb Director of the Resurgence
Know Your Heretics series
A self-appointed "helper of Jesus"
Manichaeism is based on the teachings of Mani (216–c.277), who founded a Gnostic-like, highly dualistic religion. He rejected all of the Old Testament and much of the New Testament. Mani claimed his religion to be the unadulterated form of Christianity. He referred to himself as “Mani, an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the appointment of God the Father,” thinking himself to be the "helper" to whom Jesus alluded in John 14:16.
"Battle between light and dark"
The Manichean religion is a fusion of aspects of Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Gnostic versions of Christianity—a pantheistic hodgepodge. Central to Manichaeism is the belief in a primordial feud between the powers of light and darkness. Mani taught that behind the universe lay two ultimate principles: God the Father reigns over the Kingdom of Light, which is spiritual, and a horrible prince rules over the Kingdom of Darkness, which is material. Both kingdoms are eternal and in perpetual conflict.
Too spiritual for the Resurrection
All material things, including the physical body, were viewed as evil and restrictive. This led the Manicheans to reject the biblical concept of the resurrection of the dead, the content of Christian hope.
In striving for release from their finite bodies through the obedience of simple moral laws, Manicheans were taught to hope for reincarnation as members of the elect who would eventually be delivered from the world cycle through the process of transmigration. Church historian J.N.D. Kelly describes this strange belief:
As he exists, man is tragically involved in the material order; he is fallen and lost. Actually, however, he is a particle of Light, belonging to, though exiled from, the transcendent world. He is of the same essence as God, and human souls are fragments of the divine substance. His salvation lies in grasping this truth by an interior illumination which may be spontaneous, but usually comes in response to initiation into the Manichean fellowship; and in the process of salvation, God is at once redeemer and redeemed.
Too spiritual for the Incarnation
The Manichean view of Christ is seriously different from the Bible’s. Due to the dualism of the religion, the body, being natural and material, is considered evil. For the Son of God to take on our nature would be to contaminate himself with evil. The Incarnation, a contradiction to this dualistic belief, was considered outlandish and implausible.
Perhaps the most famous Manichean was St. Augustine, who adhered to this religion for 10 years while he was at Carthage and then at Rome before he converted to Christianity.
Augustine wrote against Manichaeism in his Confessions and Against Faustus the Manichaean. (Faustus was the chief theologian of Manichaeism).
Christ above all
Manichaeism is clearly contrary to orthodox Christianity in that it insists there is no omnipotent God who is the creator of all things. Rather, the eternal struggle between good and evil places the force of good on equal footing with the force of evil. In contrast, orthodox Christianity asserts there is one God who existed prior to, and separate from, creation. God is not one with the world (as pantheism states), nor is he unable to defeat evil. On the contrary, Colossians asserts that Christ is above every earthly power and his victorious resurrection serves as the ultimate answer to the problem of evil.
“Contrary to Manichaeism, Christianity does not ascribe evil to creation, for the book of Genesis describes everything created by God as good and untainted by sin before the fall of Adam.”
Manichaeism today
The Manichean religion finds continuity with much contemporary new age spiritualism. The idea that “God is in everything and everything is in God” pervades culture, and the concept of reincarnation is prevalent. Contrary to reincarnation, Christianity teaches that salvation does not lie in overcoming evil through moral behavior and upright living. Rather, it consists in acknowledging one’s inability to do so and clinging to the one who has—the God-man, Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Know Your Heretics: Docetism
Justin Holcomb Director of the Resurgence
Know Your Heretics series
Docetism was a heresy about Jesus that gained in popularity in the third century among those committed to Greek philosophy. Docetism is a term for a set of beliefs that were found in a number of heresies, including Marcionism and Gnosticism.
“Jesus Felt No Pain”
Unlike many early heresies that denied the divinity of Jesus, Docetism eliminates his humanity. Suggesting that Jesus only appeared to be human though he was in fact not, Docetism derives its name from the Greek word dokeo, which means “to seem or appear.”
Those holding to Docetism believed that there was one eternal father who was eternally transcendent and therefore unable to experience any sort of human emotion of suffering. The idea that Jesus became human flesh (John 1:14) and experienced life as a human was unthinkable and offensive to this philosophy.
The Gospel of Peter, an apocryphal book, illustrates a Docetic view. It says that during his crucifixion, Jesus “kept silence, as one feeling no pain,” which implied, as church historian J.N.D. Kelly notes, “that His bodily make-up was illusory.”
Jesus Truly Suffered
The orthodox early church was strongly opposed to Docetism.
Irenaeus thought the teaching was so dangerous that he wrote a five-volume work (Against Heresies) against one of Docetism’s prominent teachers, Valentinus (c. 136–c. 165).
Ignatius said that it would have been foolish for him to have been imprisoned for proclaiming one who merely appeared to suffer for his sake:
Turn a deaf ear therefore when any one speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, the child of Mary, who was truly born, who ate and drank, who was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and truly died….But if, as some godless men, that is, unbelievers, say, he suffered in mere appearance (being themselves being mere appearances), why am I in bonds?
Polycarp makes the strongest possible charge against the Docetists by saying that “everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ,” echoing 1 John 4:2-3.
Jesus Came in the Flesh
As theologian Stephen Nichols points out, much contemporary popular theology tends to “view Jesus as sort of floating six inches off the ground as he walked upon the earth.” Downplaying or rejecting the true humanity of Jesus is common today, but it does not fit with the biblical picture of Jesus given to us in the Gospels.
While on earth, Jesus experienced hunger (Matt. 4:2) and thirst (John 19:28), showed compassion (Matt. 9:36), was tired (John 4:6), felt sorrow to the point of weeping (John 11:35), and grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52). Yet, in all of his humanness, Jesus never sinned (Heb. 4:15).
Like Us in Every Way, Yet Without Sin
Avoiding Docetism is important because, as the author of Hebrews writes, Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17).
It is because Jesus was tempted as we are that he is able to sympathize with us in our weakness. Put bluntly, the whole of the atonement rests on Docetism being false. On this point, T. F. Torrance writes: “Any docetic view of the humanity of Christ snaps the lifeline between God and man, and destroys the relevance of the divine acts in Jesus for men and women of flesh and blood.”
If Docetism is true and he was so heavenly that he only appeared human, then we no longer can place our confidence in Jesus Christ, who as truly God and truly man serves as the mediator between God and men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
