PANTOKRATOR

Article 17 BCP 1928

2011-11-29T19:31:00.001-06:00

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

2011-09-09T08:52:00.000-05:00

21Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.g23“Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.h 24When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.i 25And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26So the servantj fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,k and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,l until he should pay all his debt. 35So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”Lord we pray that you will give us the grace to forgive one another, as you forgive us through your Son Jesus Christ.

2011-07-13T02:36:00.000-05:00

"...only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience.That is, only the Christian view of God, creation, providence, revelation, and human nature can make sense of the world in which we live. So, for example, only the Christian worldview can make sense out of morality since it alone provides the necessary presuppositions for making ethical evaluations, namely, an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals His moral will to mankind. It does not make sense, however, for the atheist/materialist to denounce any action as wrong since, according to his worldview, all that exists is matter in motion. And matter in motion is inherently non-moral. That is, since the world according to the materialist is totally explicable in terms of physical processes, and since physical processes are categorically non-moral, moral considerations have no place in his worldview. Thus for the materialist to say that stealing is morally wrong makes as much sense as saying that the secretion of insulin from the pancreas is morally wrong. [This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius Van Til, they are living on "borrowed capital" from the Christian worldview. Thus they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession].- Michael Butler

2011-03-24T09:02:00.000-05:00

Daleth

25My soul clings to the dust;
give me life according to your word!
26When I told of my ways, you answered me;
teach me your statutes!
27Make me understand the way of your precepts,
and I will meditate on your wondrous works.
28My soul melts away for sorrow;
strengthen me according to your word!
29Put false ways far from me
and graciously teach me your law!
30I have chosen the way of faithfulness;
I set your rules before me.
31I cling to your testimonies, O LORD;
let me not be put to shame!
32I will run in the way of your commandments
when you enlarge my heart!

2011-02-24T11:04:00.002-06:00

Gimel.

17Deal bountifully with Your servant,
That I may live and keep Your word.

18Open my eyes, that I may behold
Wonderful things from Your law.

19I am a stranger in the earth;
Do not hide Your commandments from me.

20My soul is crushed with longing
After Your ordinances at all times.

21You rebuke the arrogant, the cursed,
Who wander from Your commandments.

22Take away reproach and contempt from me,
For I observe Your testimonies.

23Even though princes sit and talk against me,
Your servant meditates on Your statutes.

24Your testimonies also are my delight;
They are my counselors.

2011-02-23T08:51:00.002-06:00

Beth

9 How can a young man keep his way pure?
By guarding it according to your word.
10 With my whole heart I seek you;
let me not wander from your commandments!
11 I have stored up your word in my heart,
that I might not sin against you.
12 Blessed are you, O Lord;
teach me your statutes!
13 With my lips I declare
all the rules of your mouth.
14 In the way of your testimonies I delight
as much as in all riches.
15 I will meditate on your precepts
and fix my eyes on your ways.
16 I will delight in your statutes;
I will not forget your word.

2011-02-21T08:59:00.002-06:00

The Law and the Christian

As New Testament Christians what is our relationship to the Law?
Should we concern ourselves with keeping the Torah?
Are there benefits for the Christian in keeping the Law in the post-modern world?
Does this stuff still apply to me?
Am I a Pietist for loving the Law and wanting to keep it?
Can I keep the Law?
What is Psalm 119 all about?

These seven questions have been on my mind lately. I will pour my energy into studying Psalm 119, and will occasionally post my findings on this blog.

Please feel free to comment at anytime.

Psalm 119

Aleph
1Blessed are those whose way is blameless,
who walk in the law of the LORD!
2Blessed are those who keep his testimonies,
who seek him with their whole heart,
3who also do no wrong,
but walk in his ways!
4You have commanded your precepts
to be kept diligently.
5Oh that my ways may be steadfast
in keeping your statutes!
6Then I shall not be put to shame,
having my eyes fixed on all your commandments.
7I will praise you with an upright heart,
when I learn your righteous rules.
8I will keep your statutes;
do not utterly forsake me!

2010-11-23T21:18:00.000-06:00

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
1. The Holy Spirit came upon people to empower them for specific tasks (Judges 6:34; 1 Chron. 12:18; 2 Chron. 24:20). a) interpretation of dreams (Gen. 41:38, Dan. 5:11) b) special skills (Ex. 31:1-7) c) prophesy (1 Sam. 10:6, 2 Sam. 23:23, Ezekiel 11:5, 24, Joel 2:28-29) 2. The Spirit of God was involved in creating the universe (Gen. 1:2, Prov. 8:22-31, Ps. 33:6, Is. 40:12,13). 3. The Spirit gave wisdom (Prov. 8, Is. 11:1-3). mind=ruah. 4. The Spirit moved people geographically (Ezekiel 2:2, 3:12-15, 11:24, 37:1, 37:14, 43:5). 5. Brings righteousness (Psalm 143:10; Isaiah 4:4). 6. Gives life (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4). 7. Sustains life (Psalm 104:10-14, 30). 8. Takes life (Is. 40:7; Psalm 104:29; Job 34:14-15). 9. The Spirit is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10).

2010-05-27T22:49:00.001-05:00

Why Some People Struggle to Understand the Bible Posted on May 27, 2010, 9:17 pm, by frdoug, under Theology. Scripture is the self-disclosure of God reversing the curse and restoring creation to its Edenic origins (Gen. 3, Rev. 20-21). This restoration takes place within history, the time-space continuum, so that the events of history can only be interpreted eschatologically. In other words, a single verse, person, or event must always be read as a contribution to the over-arching narrative, God’s meta-narrative of restoration. A few illustrations will suffice. Moses is a harbinger of the true Israelite to come, the One who will redeem His brethern. As such, he passes through the water (Ex. 2:1-10), enters the wilderness (Ex. 2:11-15) and meets God on a mountain (Ex. 3:1-3). A cursory reading of the gospels shows Christ fufilling the pattern. So then, Moses can no longer be construed merely as an example of faith, courage or endurance. Instead, he must be interpreted redemptively, as a type of the Christ to come. This method of reading the Scriptures illumines seemingly opaque details. Take for example Luke’s passing remark in Acts 18:3, “[Paul] was a tentmaker.” Generally, this is seen as insignificant, important only for church planters. Yet, when read through an eschatological “lense” those words swell with meaning and help ellucidate God’s meta-narrative of restoration, for only three chapters earlier (Acts 15:16) James quotes Amos 9:11, “I will restore David’s fallen tent” to justify the inclusion of the Gentiles. So then, Paul is more than a missionary, who supports himself. Instead, he is the tent making Apostle will make God a tent, comprised of both Jew and Gentiles (Eph. 2). Priests and pastors must eschew moralism, for that will reduce them to mere motivators, while transforming their people into arrogant Pharisees. Instead they must preach the whole of Scripture as God’s story of redemption and transformation.

Fr Doug Sangster, Holy Trinity Reformed Episcopal Church Houston.

http://holytrinityrec.org/AFAC/?p=160

2010-04-27T00:38:00.003-05:00

Why I Believe in God

By: The Rev. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D.

You have noticed, haven't you, that in recent times certain scientists like Dr. James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington, as well as some outstanding philosophers like Dr. C.E.M. Joad, have had a good deal to say about religion and God? Scientists Jeans and Eddington are ready to admit that there may be something to the claims of men who say they have had an experience of God, while Philosopher Joad says that the "obtrusiveness of evil" has virtually compelled him to look into the argument for God's existence afresh. Much like modernist theologian Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr who talks about original sin, Philosopher Joad speaks about evil as being ineradicable from the human mind.

Then, too, you have on occasion asked yourself whether death ends all. You have recalled, perhaps, how Socrates the great Greek philosopher, struggled with that problem the day before he drank the hemlock cup. Is there anything at all, you ask yourself, to the idea of a judgement after death? Am I quite sure, you say, that there is not? How do I know that there is no God?

In short, as a person of intelligence, having a sense of responsibility, you have from time to time asked yourself some questions about the foundation of your thought and action. You have looked into, or at least been concerned about, what the philosophers call your theory of reality . So when I suggest that you spend a Sunday afternoon with me discussing my reasons for believing in God, I have the feeling that you are basically interested in what I am proposing for discussion.

To make our conversation more interesting, let's start by comparing notes on our past. That will fit in well with our plan, for the debate concerning heredity and environment is prominent in our day. Perhaps you think that the only real reason I have for believing in God is the fact that I was taught to do so in my early days. Of course I don't think that is really so. I don't deny that I was taught to believe in God when I was a child, but I do affirm that since I have grown up I have heard a pretty full statement of the argument against belief in God. And it is after having heard that argument that I am more than ever ready to believe in God. Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence. However if, after hearing my story briefly, you still think it is all a matter of heredity and environment, I shall not disagree too violently. My whole point will be that there is perfect harmony between my belief as a child and my belief as a man, simply because God is Himself the environment by which my early life was directed and my later life made intelligible to myself.

The "Accident of Birth"

We are frequently told that much in our life depends on "the accident of birth". In ancient time some men were said to spring full-grown from the foreheads of the gods. That, at any rate, is not true today. Yet I understand the next best thing happened to you. You were born, I am told, in Washington, D.C., under the shadow of the White House. Well, I was born in a little thatched roof house with a cow barn attached, in Holland. You wore "silver slippers" and I wore wooden shoes.

Is this really important for our purpose? Not particularly, but it is important that neither of us was born in Guadalcanal or Timbuktu. Both of us, I mean, were born in the midst and under the influence of "Christian civilization." We shall limit our discussion, then, to the "God of Christianity." I believe, while you do not believe or are not sure that you do believe, in this particular kind of God. That will give point to our discussion. For surely there is no sense in talking about the existence of God, without knowing what kind of God it is who may or may not exist.

So much then we have gained. We at least know in general what sort of God we are going to make the subject for our conversation. If now we can come to a similar preliminary agreement as to the standard or test by which to prove or disprove God's existence, we can proceed. You, of course, do not expect me to bring God into the room here so that you may see Him. If I were able to do that, He would not be the God of Christianity. All that you expect me to do is to make it reasonable for you to believe in God. And I should like to respond quickly by saying that that is just what I am trying to do. But a moment's thought makes me hesitate. If you really do not believe in God, then you naturally do not believe that you are his creature. I, on the other hand, who do believe in God also believe, naturally, that it is reasonable for God's creature to believe in God. So I can only undertake to show that, even if it does not appear reasonable to you, it is reasonable for you, to believe in God.

I see you are getting excited. You feel a little like a man who is about to undergo a major operation. You realize that if you are to change your belief about God, you will also have to change your belief about yourself. And you are not quite ready for that. Well, you may leave if you desire. I certainly do not wish to be impolite. I only thought that as an intelligent person you would be willing to hear the "other side" of the question. And after all I am not asking you to agree with what I say. We have not really agreed on what we mean by God more than in a general and formal way. So also we need not at this point agree on the standard or test in more than a general or formal way. You might follow my argument, just for argument's sake.

Childhood

To go on, then, I can recall playing as a child in a sandbox built into a corner of the hay-barn. From the hay-barn I would go through the cow-barn to the house. Built into the hay- barn too, but with doors opening into the cow-barn, was a bed for the working-man. How badly I wanted permission to sleep in that bed for a night! Permission was finally given. Freud was still utterly unknown to me, but I had heard about ghosts and "forerunners of death." That night I heard the cows jingle their chains. I knew there were cows and that they did a lot of jingling with their chains, but after a while I was not quite certain that it was only the cows that made all the noises I heard. Wasn't there someone walking down the aisle back of the cows, and wasn't he approaching my bed? Already I had been taught to say my evening prayers. Some of the words of that prayer were to this effect: "Lord, convert me, that I may be converted." Unmindful of the paradox, I prayed that prayer that night as I had never prayed before.

I do not recall speaking either to my father or mother about my distress. They would have been unable to provide the modern remedy. Psychology did not come to their library table -- not even The Ladies Home Journal ! Yet I know what they would have said. Of course there were no ghosts, and certainly I should not be afraid anyway, since with body and soul I belonged to my Savior who died for me on the Cross and rose again that His people might be saved from hell and go to heaven! I should pray earnestly and often that the Holy Spirit might give me a new heart so that I might truly love God instead of sin and myself.

How do I know that this is the sort of thing they would have told me? Well, that was the sort of thing they spoke about from time to time. Or rather, that was the sort of thing that constituted the atmosphere of our daily life. Ours was not in any sense a pietistic family. There were not any great emotional outbursts on any occasion that I recall. There was much ado about making hay in the summer and about caring for the cows and sheep in the winter, but round about it all there was a deep conditioning atmosphere. Though there were no tropical showers of revivals, the relative humidity was always very high. At every meal the whole family was present. There was a closing as well as an opening prayer, and a chapter of the Bible was read each time. The Bible was read through from Genesis to Revelation. At breakfast or at dinner, as the case might be, we would hear of the New Testament, or of "the children of Gad after their families, of Zephon and Haggi and Shuni and Ozni, of Eri and Areli." I do not claim that I always fully understood the meaning of it all. Yet of the total effect there can be no doubt. The Bible became for me, in all its parts, in every syllable, the very Word of God. I learned that I must believe the Scripture story, and that "faith" was a gift of God. What had happened in the past, and particularly what had happened in the past in Palestine, was of the greatest moment to me. In short, I was brought up in what Dr. Joad would call "topographical and temporal parochialism." I was "conditioned" in the most thorough fashion. I could not help believing in God -- in the God of Christianity -- in the God of the whole Bible!

Living next to the Library of Congress, you were not so restricted. Your parents were very much enlightened in their religious views. They read to you from some Bible of the World instead of from the Bible of Palestine. No, indeed, you correct me, they did no such thing. They did not want to trouble you about religious matters in your early days. They sought to cultivate the "open mind" in their children.

Shall we say then that in my early life I was conditioned to believe in God, while you were left free to develop your own judgment as you pleased? But that will hardly do. You know as well as I that every child is conditioned by its environment. You were as thoroughly conditioned not to believe in God as I was to believe in God. So let us not call each other names. If you want to say that belief was poured down my throat, I shall retort by saying that unbelief was poured down your throat. That will get us set for our argument.

Early Schooling

To the argument we must now shortly come. Just another word, however, about my schooling. That will bring all the factors into the picture.

I was not quite five when somebody -- fortunately I cannot recall who -- took me to school. On the first day I was vaccinated and it hurt. I can still feel it. I had already been to church. I recall that definitely because I would sometimes wear my nicely polished leather shoes. A formula was read over me at my baptism which solemnly asserted that I had been conceived and born in sin, the idea being that my parents, like all men, had inherited sin from Adam, the first man and the representative of the human race. The formula further asserted that though thus conditioned by inescapable sin I was, as a child of the Covenant, redeemed in Christ. And at the ceremony my parents solemnly promised that as soon as I should be able to understand they would instruct me in all these matters by all the means at their disposal.

It was in pursuance of this vow that they sent me to a Christian grade school. In it I learned that my being saved from sin and my belonging to God made a difference for all that I knew or did. I saw the power of God in nature and His providence in the course of history. That gave the proper setting for my salvation, which I had in Christ. In short, the whole wide world that gradually opened up for me through my schooling was regarded as operating in its every aspect under the direction of the all-powerful and all-wise God whose child I was through Christ. I was to learn to think God's thoughts after him in every field of endeavor.

Naturally there were fights on the "campus" of the school and I was engaged in some -- though not in all -- of them. Wooden shoes were wonderful weapons of war. Yet we were strictly forbidden to use them, even for defensive purposes. There were always lectures both by teachers and by parents on sin and evil in connection with our martial exploits. This was especially the case when a regiment of us went out to do battle with the pupils of the public school. The children of the public school did not like us. They had an extensive vocabulary of vituperation. Who did we think we were anyway? We were goody goodies -- too good to go to the public school! "There! take that and like it!" We replied in kind. Meanwhile our sense of distinction grew by leaps and wounds. We were told in the evening that we must learn to bear with patience the ridicule of the "world." Had not the world hated the church, since Cain's time?

How different your early schooling was! You went to a "neutral" school. As your parents had done at home, so your teachers now did at school. They taught you to be "open-minded." God was not brought into connection with your study of nature or history. You were trained without bias all along the line.

Of course, you know better now. You realize that all that was purely imaginary. To be "without bias" is only to have a particular kind of bias. The idea of "neutrality" is simply a colorless suit that covers a negative attitude toward God. At least it ought to be plain that he who is not for the God of Christianity is against Him. You see, the world belongs to Him, and that you are His creature, and as such are to own up to that fact by honoring Him whether you eat or drink or do anything else. God says that you live, as it were, on His estate. And His estate has large ownership signs placed everywhere, so that he who goes by even at seventy miles an hour cannot but read them. Every fact in this world, the God of the Bible claims, has His stamp indelibly engraved upon it. How then could you be neutral with respect to such a God? Do you walk about leisurely on a Fourth of July in Washington wondering whether the Lincoln Memorial belongs to anyone? Do you look at "Old Glory" waving from a high flagpole and wonder whether she stands for anything? Does she require anything of you, born an American citizen as you are? You would deserve to suffer the fate of the "man without a country" if as an American you were neutral to America. Well, in a much deeper sense you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your Creator. You dare not manipulate God's world and least of all yourself as His image-bearer, for you own final purposes. When Eve became neutral as between God and the Devil, weighing the contentions of each as though they were inherently on the face of them of equal value, she was in reality already on the side of the devil!

There you go again getting excited once more. Sit down and calm yourself. You are open-minded and neutral are you not? And you have learned to think that any hypothesis has, as a theory of life, an equal right to be heard with any other, have you not? After all I am only asking you to see what is involved in the Christian conception of God. If the God of Christianity exists, the evidence for His existence is abundant and plain so that it is both unscientific and sinful not to believe in Him. When Dr. Joad, for example says: "The evidence for God is far from plain," on the ground that if it were plain everybody would believe in Him, he is begging the question. If the God of Christianity does exist, the evidence for Him must be plain. And the reason, therefore, why "everybody" does not believe in Him must be that "everybody" is blinded by sin. Everybody wears colored glasses. You have heard the story of the valley of the blind. A young man who was out hunting fell over a precipice into the valley of the blind. There was no escape. The blind men did not understand him when he spoke of seeing the sun and the colors of the rainbow, but a fine young lady did understand him when he spoke the language of love. The father of the girl would not consent to the marriage of his daughter to a lunatic who spoke so often of things that did not exist. But the great psychologists of the blind men's university offered to cure him of his lunacy by sewing up his eyelids. Then, they assured him, he would be normal like "everybody" else. But the simple seer went on protesting that he did see the sun.

So, as we have our tea, I propose not only to operate on your heart so as to change your will, but also on your eyes so as to change your outlook. But wait a minute. No, I do not propose to operate at all. I myself cannot do anything of the sort. I am just mildly suggesting that you are perhaps dead, and perhaps blind, leaving you to think the matter over for yourself. If an operation is to be performed it must be performed by God Himself.

Later Schooling

Meanwhile let us finish our story. At ten I came to this country and after some years decided to study for the ministry. This involved preliminary training at a Christian preparatory school and college. All my teachers were pledged to teach their subjects from the Christian point of view. Imagine teaching not only religion but algebra from the Christian point of view! But it was done. We were told that all facts in all their relations, numerical as well as others, are what they are because of God's all comprehensive plan with respect to them. Thus the very definitions of things would not merely be incomplete but basically wrong if God were left out of the picture. Were we not informed about the views of others? Did we not hear about evolution and about Immanuel Kant, the great modern philosopher who had conclusively shown that all the arguments for the existence of God were invalid? Oh, yes, we heard about all these things, but there were refutations given and these refutations seemed adequate to meet the case.

In the Seminaries I attended, namely Calvin, and Princeton before its reorganization along semi-modernist lines in 1929, the situation was much the same. So for instance Dr. Robert Dick Wilson used to tell us, and, as far as we could understand the languages, show us from the documents, that the "higher critics" had done nothing that should rightfully damage our child-like faith in the Old Testament as the Word of God. Similarly Dr. J. Gresham Machen and others made good their claim that New Testament Christianity is intellectually defensible and that the Bible is right in its claims. You may judge of their arguments by reading them for yourself. In short, I heard the story of historic Christianity and the doctrine of God on which it is built over and over from every angle by those who believed it and were best able to interpret its meaning.

The telling of this story has helped, I trust, to make the basic question simple and plain. You know pretty clearly now what sort of God it is of which I am speaking to you. If my God exists it was He who was back of my parents and teachers. It was He who conditioned all that conditioned me in my early life. But then it was He also who conditioned everything that conditioned you in your early life. God, the God of Christianity, is the All-Conditioner!

As the All-Conditioner, God is the All-Conscious One. A God Who is to control all things must control them "by the counsel of His will." If He did not do this, He would himself be conditioned. So then I hold that my belief in Him and your disbelief in Him are alike meaningless except for Him.

Objections Raised

By this time you are probably wondering whether I have really ever heard the objections which are raised against belief in such a God. Well, I think I have. I heard them from my teachers who sought to answer them. I also heard them from teachers who believed they could not be answered. While a student at Princeton Seminary I attended summer courses in the Chicago Divinity School. Naturally I heard the modern or liberal view of Scripture set forth fully there. And after graduation from the Seminary I spent two years at Princeton University for graduate work in philosophy. There the theories of modern philosophy were both expounded and defended by very able men. In short I was presented with as full a statement of the reasons for disbelief as I had been with the reasons for belief. I heard both sides fully from those who believed what they taught.

You have compelled me to say this by the look on your face. Your very gestures suggest that you cannot understand how any one acquainted with the facts and arguments presented by modern science and philosophy can believe in a God who really created the world, who really directs all things in the world by a plan to the ends He has in view for them. Well, I am only one of many who hold to the old faith in full view of what is said by modern science, modern philosophy, and modern Biblical criticism.

Obviously I cannot enter into a discussion of all the facts and all the reasons urged against belief in God. There are those who have made the Old Testament, as there are those who have made the New Testament, their life-long study. It is their works you must read for a detailed refutation of points of Biblical criticism. Others have specialized in physics and biology. To them I must refer you for a discussion of the many points connected with such matters as evolution. But there is something that underlies all these discussions. And it is with that something that I now wish to deal.

You may think I have exposed myself terribly. Instead of talking about God as something vague and indefinite, after the fashion of the modernist, the Barthians, and the mystic, a god so empty of content and remote from experience as to make no demands upon men, I have loaded down the idea of God with "antiquated" science and "contradictory" logic. It seems as though I have heaped insult upon injury by presenting the most objectionable sort of God I could find. It ought to be very easy for you to prick my bubble. I see you are ready to read over my head bushels of facts taken from the standard college texts on physics, biology, anthropology, and psychology, or to crush me with your sixty-ton tanks taken from Kant's famous book, The Critique of Pure Reason . But I have been under these hot showers now a good many times. Before you take the trouble to open the faucet again there is a preliminary point I want to bring up. I have already referred to it when we were discussing the matter of test or standard.

The point is this. Not believing in God, we have seen , you do not think yourself to be God's creature. And not believing in God you do not think the universe has been created by God. That is to say, you think of yourself and the world as just being there. Now if you actually are God's creature, then your present attitude is very unfair to Him. In that case it is even an insult to Him. And having insulted God, His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on "speaking terms." And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him. You are therefore wearing colored glasses. And this determines everything you say about the facts and reasons for not believing in Him. You have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God's vineyard without paying Him any rent and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it.

I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand.

Now in presenting all your facts and reasons to me, you have assumed that such a God does not exist. You have taken for granted that you need no emplacement of any sort outside of yourself. You have assumed the autonomy of your own experience. Consequently you are unable -- that is, unwilling -- to accept as a fact any fact that would challenge your self-sufficiency. And you are bound to call that contradictory which does not fit into the reach of your intellectual powers. You remember what old Procrustes did. If his visitors were too long, he cut off a few slices at each end; if they were too short, he used the curtain stretcher on them. It is that sort of thing I feel that you have done with every fact of human experience. And I am asking you to be critical of this your own most basic assumption. Will you not go into the basement of your own experience to see what has been gathering there while you were busy here and there with the surface inspection of life? You may be greatly surprised at what you find there.

To make my meaning clearer, I shall illustrate what I have said by pointing out how modern philosophers and scientists handle the facts and doctrines of Christianity.

Basic to all the facts and doctrines of Christianity and therefore involved in the belief in God, is the creation doctrine. Now modern philosophers and scientists as a whole claim that to hold such a doctrine or to believe in such a fact is to deny our own experience. They mean this not merely in the sense that no one was there to see it done, but in the more basic sense that it is logically impossible. They assert that it would break the fundamental laws of logic.

The current argument against the creation doctrine derives from Kant. It may fitly be expressed in the words of a more recent philosopher, James Ward: "If we attempt to conceive of God apart from the world, there is nothing to lead us on to creation" (Realm of Ends , p. 397). That is to say, if God is to be connected to the universe at all, he must be subject to its conditions. Here is the old creation doctrine. It says that God has caused the world to come into existence. But what do we mean by the word "cause"? In our experience, it is that which is logically correlative to the word "effect". If you have an effect you must have a cause and if you have a cause you must have an effect. If God caused the world, it must therefore have been because God couldn't help producing an effect. And so the effect may really be said to be the cause of the cause. Our experience can therefore allow for no God other than one that is dependent upon the world as much as the world is dependent upon Him.

The God of Christianity cannot meet these requirements of the autonomous man. He claims to be all-sufficient. He claims to have created the world, not from necessity but from His free will. He claims not to have changed in Himself when He created the world. His existence must therefore be said to be impossible and the creation doctrine must be said to be an absurdity.

The doctrine of providence is also said to be at variance with experience. This is but natural. One who rejects creation must logically also reject providence. If all things are controlled by God's providence, we are told, there can be nothing new and history is but a puppet dance.

You see then that I might present to you great numbers of facts to prove the existence of God. I might say that every effect needs a cause. I might point to the wonderful structure of the eye as evidence of God's purpose in nature. I might call in the story of mankind through the past to show that it has been directed and controlled by God. All these evidences would leave you unaffected. You would simply say that however else we may explain reality, we cannot bring in God. Cause and purpose, you keep repeating, are words that we human beings use with respect to things around us because they seem to act as we ourselves act, but that is as far as we can go.

And when the evidence for Christianity proper is presented to you the procedure is the same. If I point out to you that the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled, you will simply reply that it quite naturally appears that way to me and to others, but that in reality it is not possible for any mind to predict the future from the past. If it were, all would again be fixed and history would be without newness and freedom.

Then if I point to the many miracles, the story is once more the same. To illustrate this point I quote from the late Dr. William Adams Brown, an outstanding modernist theologian. "Take any of the miracles of the past," says Brown, "The virgin birth, the raising of Lazarus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Suppose that you can prove that these events happened just as they are claimed to have happened. What have you accomplished? You have shown that our previous view of the limits of the possible needs to be enlarged; that our former generalizations were too narrow and need revision; that problems cluster about the origin of life and its renewal of which we had hitherto been unaware. But the one thing which you have not shown, which indeed you cannot show, is that a miracle has happened; for that is to confess that these problems are inherently insoluble, which cannot be determined until all possible tests have been made" (God at Work, New York, 1933, p. 169). You see with what confidence Brown uses this weapon of logical impossibility against the idea of a miracle. Many of the older critics of Scripture challenged the evidence for miracle at this point or at that. They made as it were a slow, piece-meal land invasion of the island of Christianity. Brown, on the other hand, settles the matter at once by a host of stukas from the sky. Any pill boxes that he cannot destroy immediately, he will mop up later. He wants to get rapid control of the whole field first. And this he does by directly applying the law of non-contradiction. Only that is possible, says Brown, in effect, which I can show to be logically related according to my laws of logic. So then if miracles want to have scientific standing, that is be recognized as genuine facts, they must sue for admittance at the port of entry to the mainland of scientific endeavor. And admission will be given as soon as they submit to the little process of generalization which deprives them of their uniqueness. Miracles must take out naturalization papers if they wish to vote in the republic of science and have any influence there.

Take now the four points I have mentioned -- creation, providence, prophecy, and miracle. Together they represent the whole of Christian theism. Together they include what is involved in the idea of God and what He has done round about and for us. Many times over and in many ways the evidence for all these has been presented. But you have an always available and effective answer at hand. It is impossible! It is impossible! You act like a postmaster who has received a great many letters addressed in foreign languages. He says he will deliver them as soon as they are addressed in the King's English by the people who sent them. Till then they must wait in the dead letter department. Basic to all the objections the average philosopher and scientist raises against the evidence for the existence of God is the assertion or the assumption that to accept such evidence would be to break the rules of logic.

I see you are yawning. Let us stop to eat supper now. For there is one more point in this connection that I must make. You have no doubt at some time in your life been to a dentist. A dentist drills a little deeper and then a little deeper and at last comes to the nerve of the matter.

Now before I drill into the nerve of the matter, I must again make apologies. The fact that so many people are placed before a full exposition of the evidence for God's existence and yet do not believe in Him has greatly discouraged us. We have therefore adopted measures of despair. Anxious to win your good will, we have again compromised our God. Noting the fact that men do not see, we have conceded that what they ought to see is hard to see. In our great concern to win men we have allowed that the evidence for God's existence is only probably compelling. And from that fatal confession we have gone one step further down to the point where we have admitted or virtually admitted that it is not really compelling at all. And so we fall back upon testimony instead of argument. After all, we say, God is not found at the end of an argument; He is found in our hearts. So we simply testify to men that once we were dead, and now we are alive, that once we were blind and that now we see, and give up all intellectual argument.

Do you suppose that our God approves of this attitude of His followers? I do not think so. The God who claims to have made all facts and to have placed His stamp upon them will not grant that there is really some excuse for those who refuse to see. Besides, such a procedure is self-defeating. If someone in your home town of Washington denied that there was any such thing as a United States Government would you take him some distance down the Potomac and testify to him that there is? So your experience and testimony of regeneration would be meaningless except for the objective truth of the objective facts that are presupposed by it. A testimony that is not an argument is not a testimony either, just as an argument that is not a testimony is not even an argument.

Waiving all this for the moment, let us see what the modern psychologist of religion, who stands on the same foundation with the philosopher, will do to our testimony. He makes a distinction between the raw datum and its cause, giving me the raw datum and keeping for himself the explanation of the cause. Professor James H. Leuba, a great psychologist of Bryn Mawr, has a procedure that is typical. He says, "The reality of any given datum -- of an immediate experience in the sense in which the term is used here, may not be impugned: When I feel cold or warm, sad or gay, discouraged or confident, I am cold, sad, discouraged, etc., and every argument which might be advanced to prove to me that I am not cold is, in the nature of the case, preposterous; an immediate experience may not be controverted; it cannot be wrong." All this seems on the surface to be very encouraging. The immigrant is hopeful of a ready and speedy admittance. However, Ellis Island must still be passed. "But if the raw data of experience are not subject to criticism, the causes ascribed to them are. If I say that my feeling of cold is due to an open window, or my state of exultation to a drug, or my renewed courage to God, my affirmation goes beyond my immediate experience; I have ascribed a cause to it, and that cause may be the right or the wrong one." (God or Man, New York, 1933, p. 243.) And thus the immigrant must wait at Ellis Island a million years. That is to say, I as a believer in God through Christ, assert that I am born again through the Holy Spirit. The Psychologist says that is a raw datum of experience and as such incontrovertible. We do not, he says, deny it. But it means nothing to us. If you want it to mean something to us you must ascribe a cause to your experience. We shall then examine the cause. Was your experience caused by opium or God? You say by God. Well, that is impossible since as philosophers we have shown that it is logically contradictory to believe in God. You may come back at any time when you have changed your mind about the cause of your regeneration. We shall be glad to have you and welcome you as a citizen of our realm, if only you take out your naturalization papers!

We seem now to have come to a pretty pass. We agreed at the outset to tell each other the whole truth. If I have offended you it has been because I dare not, even in the interest of winning you, offend my God. And if I have not offended you I have not spoken of my God. For what you have really done in your handling of the evidence for belief in God, is to set yourself up as God. You have made the reach of your intellect, the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all -- facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing -- must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator.

Of course I realize full well that you do not pretend to create redwood trees and elephants. But you do virtually assert that redwood trees and elephants cannot be created by God. You have heard of the man who never wanted to see or be a purple cow. Well, you have virtually determined that you never will see or be a created fact. With Sir Arthur Eddington you say as it were, "What my net can't catch isn't fish."

Nor do I pretend, of course, that once you have been brought face to face with this condition, you can change your attitude. No more than the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots can you change your attitude. You have cemented your colored glasses to your face so firmly that you cannot even take them off when you sleep. Freud has not even had a glimpse of the sinfulness of sin as it controls the human heart. Only the great Physician through His blood atonement on the Cross and by the gift of His Spirit can take those colored glasses off and make you see facts as they are, facts as evidence, as inherently compelling evidence, for the existence of God.

It ought to be pretty plain now what sort of God I believe in. It is God, the All-Conditioner. It is the God who created all things, Who by His providence conditioned my youth, making me believe in Him, and who in my later life by His grace still makes me want to believe in Him. It is the God who also controlled your youth and so far has apparently not given you His grace that you might believe in Him.

You may reply to this: "Then what's the use of arguing and reasoning with me?" Well, there is a great deal of use in it. You see, if you are really a creature of God, you are always accessible to Him. When Lazarus was in the tomb he was still accessible to Christ who called him back to life. It is this on which true preachers depend. The prodigal [son] thought he had clean escaped from the father's influence. In reality the father controlled the "far country" to which the prodigal had gone. So it is in reasoning. True reasoning about God is such as stands upon God as upon the emplacement that alone gives meaning to any sort of human argument. And such reasoning, we have a right to expect, will be used of God to break down the one-horse chaise of human autonomy.

But now I see you want to go home. And I do not blame you; the last bus leaves at twelve. I should like to talk again another time. I invite you to come to dinner next Sunday. But I have pricked your bubble, so perhaps you will not come back. And yet perhaps you will. That depends upon the Father's pleasure. Deep down in your heart you know very well that what I have said about you is true. You know there is no unity in your life. You want no God who by His counsel provides for the unity you need. Such a God, you say, would allow for nothing new. So you provide your own unity. But this unity must, by your own definition, not kill that which is wholly new. Therefore it must stand over against the wholly new and never touch it at all. Thus by your logic you talk about possibles and impossibles, but all this talk is in the air. By your own standards it can never have anything to do with reality. Your logic claims to deal with eternal and changeless matters; and your facts are wholly changing things; and "never the twain shall meet." So you have made nonsense of your own experience. With the prodigal you are at the swine-trough, but it may be that, unlike the prodigal, you will refuse to return to the father's house.

On the other hand by my belief in God I do have unity in my experience. Not of course the sort of unity that you want. Not a unity that is the result of my own autonomous determination of what is possible. But a unity that is higher than mine and prior to mine. On the basis of God's counsel I can look for facts and find them without destroying them in advance. On the basis of God's counsel I can be a good physicist, a good biologist, a good psychologist, or a good philosopher. In all these fields I use my powers of logical arrangement in order to see as much order in God's universe as it may be given a creature to see. The unities, or systems that I make are true because [they are] genuine pointers toward the basic or original unity that is found in the counsel of God.

Looking about me I see both order and disorder in every dimension of life. But I look at both of them in the light of the Great Orderer Who is back of them. I need not deny either of them in the interest of optimism or in the interest of pessimism. I see the strong men of biology searching diligently through hill and dale to prove that the creation doctrine is not true with respect to the human body, only to return and admit that the missing link is missing still. I see the strong men of psychology search deep and far into the sub-consciousness, child and animal consciousness, in order to prove that the creation and providence doctrines are not true with respect to the human soul, only to return and admit that the gulf between human and animal intelligence is as great as ever. I see the strong men of logic and scientific methodology search deep into the transcendental for a validity that will not be swept away by the ever-changing tide of the wholly new, only to return and say that they can find no bridge from logic to reality, or from reality to logic. And yet I find all these, though standing on their heads, reporting much that is true. I need only to turn their reports right side up, making God instead of man the center of it all, and I have a marvelous display of the facts as God has intended me to see them.

And if my unity is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.

So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos.

I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.

The End

Converted to the electronic domain and into html format by Jonathan Barlow. Some typographical corrections have been made. The original citation for this essay, published as a pamphlet, was:

Van Til, Cornelius. Why I Believe in God. Philadelphia: Committe on Christian Education, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, n.d.

Refer to this version as:

Van Til, Cornelius. Why I Believe in God. Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, 1996, Barlow, Jonathan ed.

2010-04-26T10:06:00.002-05:00

Disputation of NiceneCouncil.com On
The Power and Efficacy of Dispensationalism
-or-
The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism

Preface

What follows should not be interpreted to mean that NiceneCouncil.com nor the historic Bible believing church would place every dispensationalist outside of the Christian faith. We acknowledge that most are dedicated to the foundational orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Unlike the sixteenth century dispute over the doctrine of justification, this is an in-house discussion, a debate among evangelical Christians. We recognize and treasure all born again believers who operate within a dispensational framework as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, we must remember that Paul loved his fellow apostle Peter and esteemed him the senior and more honored of the two of them. Nevertheless, when it came to a point of theology that had profound implications for the purity and health of the Church, Paul was constrained by his love for Christ and the Truth publicly to withstand Peter to his face. (Galatians 2:11)

Therefore, because we believe that dispensationalism has at least crippled the Church in her duty of proclaiming the gospel and discipling the nations, and out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed in a series of videos written and produced by NiceneCouncil.com under the title The Late Great Planet Church. And as iron sharpens iron we request that every Christian, congregation, and denomination discuss and debate these issues. By the grace of our great Sovereign let us engage in this debate with an open mind and an open Bible. Like the Bereans nearly two thousand years ago, let us “search the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things are so.”

95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM

1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around 1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.

2. Contrary to the dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward. (See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).

3. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ attempt to link its history to that of early premillennial Church Fathers, those ancient premillennialists held positions that are fundamentally out of accord with the very foundational principles of dispensationalism, foundations which Ryrie calls “the linchpin of dispensationalism”, such as (1) a distinction between the Church and Israel (i.e., the Church is true Israel, “the true Israelitic race” (Justin Martyr) and (2) that “Judaism ... has now come to an end” (Justin Martyr).

4. Despite dispensationalism’s claim of antiquity through its association with historic premillennialism, it radically breaks with historic premillennialism by promoting a millennium that is fundamentally Judaic rather than Christian.

5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.” Any modern-day Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and God rejects the Old Testament also.

6. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ assertion that the early Church was premillennial in its eschatology, “none of the major creeds of the church include premillennialism in their statements” (R.P. Lightner), even though the millennium is supposedly God’s plan for Israel and the very goal of history, which we should expect would make its way into our creeds.

7. Despite the dispensationalists’ general orthodoxy, the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church affirm eschatological events that are contrary to fundamental tenets of premillennialism, such as: (1) only one return of Christ, rather than dispensationalism’s two returns, separating the “rapture” and “second coming” by seven years; (2) a single, general resurrection of all the dead, both saved and lost; and (3) a general judgment of all men rather than two distinct judgments separated by one thousand years.

8. Despite the dispensationalists’ general unconcern regarding the ecumenical Church creeds, we must understand that God gave the Bible to the Church, not to individuals, because “the church of the living God” is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

9. Despite the dispensationalists’ proclamation that they have a high view of God’s Word in their “coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord), in fact they have fragmented the Bible into numerous dispensational parts with two redemptive programs—one for Israel and one for the Church—and have doubled new covenants, returns of Christ, physical resurrections, and final judgments, thereby destroying the unity and coherence of Scripture.

10. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing each of the self-contained, distinct dispensations, the Bible presents an organic unfolding of history as the Bible traces out the flow of redemptive history, so that the New Testament speaks of “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise” (Eph 2:12) and uses metaphors that require the unity of redemptive history; accordingly, the New Testament people of God are one olive tree rooted in the Old Testament (Rom 11:17-24).

11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant ... has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).

12. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ frequent citation of the King James Version translation of 2 Tim 2:15, “rightly dividing” the truth, as evidence for the need to divide the biblical record into discrete dispensations, all modern versions of Scripture and non-dispensational commentators translate this verse without any allusion to “dividing” Scripture into discrete historical divisions at all, but rather show that it means to “handle accurately” (NASB) or “correctly handle” (NIV) the word of God.

13. Because the dispensational structuring of history was unknown to the Church prior to 1830, the dispensationalists’ claim to be “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” by structuring history that way implies that no one until then had “rightly divided” God’s word.

14. Dispensationalism’s argument that “the understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies” (Charles Ryrie) is an example of the circular fallacy in logic: for it requires understanding the distinctive character of a dispensation before one can understand the revelation in that dispensation, though one cannot know what that dispensation is without first understanding the unique nature of the revelation that gives that dispensation its distinctive character.

15. Despite the dispensationalists’ popular presentation of seven distinct dispensations as necessary for properly understanding Scripture, scholars within dispensationalism admit that “one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist” (Charles Ryrie) so that the proper structuring of the dispensations is inconsequential.

16. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing history into distinct dispensations, wherein each “dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” and includes a “distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), recent dispensational scholars, such as Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, admit that the features of the dispensations merge from one dispensation into the next, so that the earlier dispensation carries the seeds of the following dispensation.

17. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of God’s grace in the Church Age, early forms of dispensationalism (and many populist forms even today) deny that grace characterized the Mosaic dispensation of law, as when C. I. Scofield stated that with the coming of Christ “the point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” (cf. John 1:17), even though the Ten Commandments themselves open with a statement of God’s grace to Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exo 20:1).

18. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of law and grace as “antithetical concepts” (Charles Ryrie) with the result that “the doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels” (Scofield Reference Bible - SRB, p. 989), the Gospels do declare the doctrines of grace, as we read in John 1:17, “For the law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” and in the Bible’s most famous verse: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

19. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ historic position that the Sermon on the Mount was designed for Israel alone, to define kingdom living, and “is law, not grace” (SRB, p. 989), historic evangelical orthodoxy sees this great Sermon as applicable to the Church in the present era, applying the Beatitudes (Matt 5:2-12), calling us to be the salt of the earth (Matt 5:13), urging us to build our house on a rock (Matt 7:21-27), directing us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), and more.

20. Despite the dispensationalists’ vigorous assertion that their system never has taught two ways of salvation (Couch), one by law-keeping and one by grace alone, the original Scofield Reference Bible, for instance, declared that the Abrahamic and new covenants differed from the Mosaic covenant regarding “salvation” in that “they impose but one condition, faith” (SRB, see note at Ex. 19:6).

21. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ central affirmation of the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) employing (alleged) literalism, the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12), the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16), and potential converts (Acts 8:30-35); requires growth in grace to understand (Heb 5:11-14) and special teachers to explain (2 Tim 2:2); and is susceptible to false teachers distorting it (1 Tim 1:7).

22. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to be following “the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation” (Charles Ryrie), they have redefined the method in a way that is rejected by the majority of non-dispensational evangelicals (and even “progressive dispensationalists”) who see that the Bible, while true in all its parts, often speaks in figures and types—e.g., most evangelicals interpret the prophecy in Isaiah and Micah of “the mountain of the house of the Lord being established as the chief of the mountains” (Isa 2:2b, Mic. 4:1b) to refer to the exaltation of God’s people; whereas dispensationalism claims this text is referring to actual geological, tectonic, and volcanic mountain-building whereby “the Temple mount would be lifted up and exalted over all the other mountains” (John Sailhammer) during the millennium.

23. Despite the dispensationalists’ conviction that their “plain interpretation” necessarily “gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage” (Charles Ryrie) and is the only proper and defensible method for interpreting Scripture, by adopting this method they are denying the practice of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament, as when the Lord points to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah’s return (Matt 10:13-14) and the Apostles apply the prophecy of the rebuilding of “the tabernacle of David” to the spiritual building of the Church (Acts 15:14-17), and many other such passages.

24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

25. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).

26. Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).

27. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that “prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ ... were all fulfilled ‘literally’” (Charles Ryrie), many such prophecies were not fulfilled in a “plain” (Ryrie) literal fashion, such as the famous Psalm 22 prophecy that speaks of bulls and dogs surrounding Christ at his crucifixion (Psa 22:12, 16), and the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy regarding the virgin, that “she will call His name Immanuel” (cp. Luke 2:21), and others.

28. Despite the dispensationalists’ argument that “prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ ... were all fulfilled ‘literally’” (Charles Ryrie), they can defend their argument only by special pleading and circular reasoning in that they (1) put off to the Second Advent all those prophecies of his coming as a king, though most non-dispensational evangelicals apply these to Christ’s first coming in that He declared his kingdom “near” (Mark 1:15); and they (2) overlook the fact that his followers preached him as a king (Acts 17:7) and declared him to be the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5) in the first century.

29. Despite the dispensationalists’ central affirmation of the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) by which their so-called literalism provides “a coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord), it ends up with one of the most ornate and complex systems in all of evangelical theology, with differing peoples, principles, plans, programs, and destinies because interpreting Scripture is not so “plain” (despite Charles Ryrie).

30. Despite the dispensationalists’ argument for the “literal” fulfillment of prophecy, when confronted with obvious New Testament, non-literal fulfillments, they will either (1) declare that the original prophecy had “figures of speech” in them (Scofield), or (2) call these “applications” of the Old Testament rather than fulfillments (Paul Tan)—which means that they try to make it impossible to bring any contrary evidence against their system by re-interpreting any such evidence in one of these two directions.

31. Despite the dispensationalists’ strong commitment to the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and its dependence on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks as “of major importance to premillennialism” (John Walvoord), they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work; and that gap is already four times longer than the whole Seventy Weeks (490 year) period.

32. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the non-contradictory integrity of Scripture, their holding to both a convoluted form of literalism and separate and distinct dispensations produces a dialectical tension between the “last trumpet” of 1 Cor. 15:51-53, which is held to be the signal for the Rapture at the end of the Church Age, and the trumpet in Matt. 24:31, which gathers elect Jews out of the Tribulation at the Second Coming (Walvoord). Dispensationalists, who allegedly are ‘literalists,’ posit that this latter trumpet is seven years after the “last” trumpet.

33. Despite the dispensationalists’ desire to promote the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, their habit of calling it the “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) leads the average reader not to look at ancient biblical texts in terms of their original setting, but in terms of their contemporary, Western setting and what they have been taught by others — since it is so “plain.”

34. Despite the dispensationalists’ confidence that they have a strong Bible-affirming hermeneutic in “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie), their so-called literalism is inconsistently employed, and their more scholarly writings lead lay dispensationalists and populist proponents simplistically to write off other evangelical interpretations of Scripture with a naive call for “literalism!”

35. Despite the dispensationalists’ attempts to defend their definition of literalism by claiming that it fits into “the received laws of language” (Ryrie), However, subsequent to Ludwig Wittgenstein's studies in linguistic analysis, there is no general agreement among philosophers regarding the "laws" of language or the proper philosophy of language (Crenshaw)."

36. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to interpret all of the Bible “literally”, Dr. O.T. Allis correctly observed, "While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers."

37. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim regarding “the unconditional character of the [Abrahamic] covenant” (J. Dwight Pentecost), which claim is essential for maintaining separate programs for Israel and the Church, the Bible in Deuteronomy 30 and other passages presents it as conditional; consequently not all of Abraham’s descendants possess the land and the covenantal blessings but only those who, by having the same faith as Abraham, become heirs through Christ.

38. Despite the dispensationalists’ necessary claim that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, they inconsistently teach that Esau is not included in the inheritance of Canaan and Abraham’s blessings, even though he was as much the son of Isaac (Abraham’s son) as was Jacob, his twin (Gen 25:21-25), because he sold his birthright and thus was excluded from the allegedly “unconditional” term of the inheritance.

39. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the Abrahamic covenant involved an unconditional land promise, which serves as one of the bases for the future hope of a millennium, the Bible teaches that Abraham “was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10), and that the city, the “new Jerusalem,” will “descend from God, out of Heaven” (Rev. 21:2).

40. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the “holy land” as a “perpetual title to the land of promise” for Israel (J. D. Pentecost), the New Testament expands the promises of the land to include the whole world, involving the expanded people of God, for Paul speaks of “the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world” (Rom 4:13a).

41. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the descendents of the patriarchs never inhabited all the land promised to them in the Abrahamic covenant and therefore, since God cannot lie, the possession of the land by the Jews is still in the future; on the contrary, Joshua wrote, “So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it… Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass” (Joshua 21:43,45).

42. Despite the dispensationalists’ so-called literalism demanding that Jerusalem and Mt. Zion must once again become central to God’s work in history, in that “Jerusalem will be the center of the millennial government” (Walvoord), the new covenant sees these places as typological pointers to spiritual realities that come to pass in the new covenant Church, beginning in the first century, as when we read that “you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22; cp. Gal 4:22-31).

43. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental theological commitment to the radical distinction between “Israel and the Church” (Ryrie), the New Testament sees two “Israels” (Rom. 9:6-8)—one of the flesh, and one of the spirit—with the only true Israel being the spiritual one, which has come to mature fulfillment in the Church. (The Christian Church has not replaced Israel; rather, it is the New Testament expansion.) This is why the New Testament calls members of the Church “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:26-29) and the Church itself “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).

44. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that Jews are to be eternally distinct from Gentiles in the plan of God, because “throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes” with “one related to the earth” while “the other is related to heaven” (Chafer and Ryrie), the New Testament speaks of the permanent union of Jew and Gentile into one body “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity” that “in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15), Accordingly, with the finished work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28).

45. Contrary to dispensationalism’s implication of race-based salvation for Jewish people (salvation by race instead of salvation by grace), Christ and the New Testament writers warn against assuming that genealogy or race insures salvation, saying to the Jews: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt 3:9) because “children of God” are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12b-13; 3:3).

46. Contrary to dispensationalism’s claim that “the Church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament” (J. D. Pentecost), the New Testament writers look to the Old Testament for its divine purpose and role in the history of redemption and declare only that the mystery was not known “to the sons of men” at large, and was not known to the same degree “as” it is now revealed to all men in the New Testament (Eph 3:4-6), even noting that it fulfills Old Testament prophecy (Hos 1:10 / Rom 9:22-26), including even the beginning of the new covenant phase of the Church (Joel 2:28-32 / Acts 2:16-19).

47. Despite dispensationalism’s presentation of the Church as a “parenthesis” (J. F. Walvoord) in the major plan of God in history (which focuses on racial Israel), the New Testament teaches that the Church is the God-ordained result of God’s Old Testament plan, so that the Church is not simply a temporary aside in God’s plan but is the institution over which Christ is the head so that He may “put all things in subjection under His feet” (Eph 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

48. Contrary to dispensationalism’s teaching that Jeremiah’s “New Covenant was expressly for the house of Israel ... and the house of Judah” (Bible Knowledge Commentary)—a teaching that is due to its man-made view of literalism as documented by former dispensationalist (Curtis Crenshaw) and the centrality of Israel in its theological system—the New Testament shows that the new covenant includes Gentiles and actually establishes the new covenant Church as the continuation of Israel (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6).

49. Contrary to dispensationalism’s claim that Christ sincerely offered “the covenanted kingdom to Israel” as a political reality in literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (J. D. Pentecost), the Gospels tell us that when his Jewish followers were “intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him king” that he “withdrew” from them (John 6:15), and that he stated that “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36).

50. Despite the dispensationalists’ belief that Christ sincerely offered a political kingdom to Israel while he was on earth (J. D. Pentecost), Israel could not have accepted the offer, since God sent Christ to die for sin (John 12:27); and His death was prophesied so clearly that those who missed the point are called “foolish” (Luke 24:25-27). Christ frequently informed His hearers that He came to die, as when He said that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28;) and Scripture clearly teaches that His death was by the decree of God (Acts 2:23) before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Thus, dispensationalism’s claim about this offer implicitly involves God in duplicity and Christ in deception.

51. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ belief that Christ “withdrew the offer of the kingdom” and postponed it until He returns (J. D. Pentecost), Christ tells Israel, “I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (Matt 21:43) and “I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).

52. Despite dispensationalism’s commitment to Christ’s atoning sacrifice, their doctrine legally justifies the crucifixion by declaring that he really did offer a political kingdom that would compete with Rome and made him guilty of revolting against Rome, even though Christ specifically informed Pilate that his type of kingship simply was “to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37), leading this Roman-appointed procurator to declare “I find no guilt in Him” (John 18:38).

53. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ urging Christians to live their lives expecting Christ’s return at any moment, “like people who don’t expect to be around much longer” (Hal Lindsey), Christ characterizes those who expect his soon return as “foolish” (Matt 25:1-9), telling us to “occupy until He comes,” (Luke 19:13 ) and even discouraging his disciples’ hope in Israel’s conversion “now” by noting that they will have to experience “times or epochs” of waiting which “the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:6-7).

54. Contrary to dispensationalism’s doctrine that Christ’s return always has been “imminent” and could occur “at any moment” (J. D. Pentecost) since his ascension in the first century, the New Testament speaks of his coming as being after a period of “delaying” (Matt 25:5) and after a “long” time (Matt 24:48; 25:19; 2 Pet. 3:1-15).

55. Contrary to dispensationalists’ tendency to date-setting and excited predictions of the Rapture, as found in their books with titles like 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon and Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive, Scripture teaches that “the son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matt 24:44), “at an hour which you do not know” (Matt 24:50).

56. Despite the dispensationalists’ frequent warning of the signs of the times indicating the near coming of Christ (Lindsey), their doctrine of imminency holds that no intervening prophecies remain to be fulfilled. Consequently, there can be no possibility of signs (John Walvoord); and as “there was nothing that needed to take place during Paul’s life before the Rapture, so it is today for us” (Tim LaHaye). Christ himself warned us that “of that day and hour no one knows” (Matt 24:36a).

57. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that Christ could return at any minute because “there is no teaching of any intervening event” (John Walvoord), many of their leading spokesmen hold that the seven churches in Rev 2-3 “outline the present age in reference to the program in the church,” including “the Reformation” and our own age (J. D. Pentecost).

58. Despite the dispensationalists’ widespread belief that we have been living in the “last days” only since the founding of Israel as a nation in 1948, the New Testament clearly and repeatedly teach that the “last days” began in the first century and cover the whole period of the Christian Church (Acts 2:16-17; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 1:1-2; 9:26)

59. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the expectation of the imminent Rapture and other eschatological matters are important tools for godly living, dispensationalism’s founders were often at odds with each other and divisive regarding other believers, so that, for instance, of the Plymouth Brethren it could be said that “never has one body of Christians split so often, in such a short period of time, over such minute points” (John Gerstner) and that “this was but the first of several ruptures arising from [Darby’s] teachings” (Dictionary of Evangelical Biography).

60. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ creation of a unique double coming of Christ—the Rapture being separated from the Second Advent—which are so different that it makes “any harmony of these two events an impossibility” (Walvoord), the Bible mentions only one future coming of Christ, the parousia, or epiphany, or revelation (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; Jas. 5:7; 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 Jn. 2:28), and states that He “shall appear a second time” (Heb 9:28a), not that He shall appear “again and again” or for a third time.

61. Despite the dispensationalists’ teaching that “Jesus will come in the air secretly to rapture His Church” (Tim LaHaye), their key proof-text for this “secret” coming, 1 Thess 4:16, makes the event as publicly verifiable as can be, declaring that he will come “with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.”

62. Contrary to dispensationalism’s doctrine of two resurrections, the first one being of believers at the Rapture and the second one of unbelievers at the end of the millennium 1007 years after the Rapture, the Bible presents the resurrection of believers as occurring on “the last day” (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24), not centuries before the last day.

63. Contrary to dispensationalism’s doctrine of two resurrections, the first one being of believers at the Rapture and the second one of unbelievers at the end of the millennium 1007 years after the Rapture, the Bible speaks of the resurrection of unbelievers as occurring before that of believers (though as a part of the same complex of events), when the angels “first gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up” at the end of the age (Matt 13:30b).

64. Despite dispensationalism’s commitment to the secret Rapture of the Church by which Christians are removed from the world to leave only non-Christians in the world, Jesus teaches that the wheat and the tares are to remain in the world to the end (Matt 13:), and he even prays that the Father not take his people out of the world (John 17:15).

65. Despite the dispensationalists’ emphasis on the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24, admitting that Christ was pointing to the stones of the first century temple when He declared that “not one will be left upon another” (Matt 23:37-24:2), they also admit inconsistently that when the disciples asked “when shall these things be?” (Matt 24:3), Matthew records Christ’s answer in such a way that He presents matters that are totally unrelated to that event and that occur thousands of years after it (Bible Knowledge Commentary).

66. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to so-called literalism in prophecy and their strong emphasis on the Great Tribulation passage in Matthew 24, they perform a sleight of hand by claiming that when Jesus stated that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34), He did so in a way inconsistent with every other usage of “this generation” in Matthew’s Gospel (e.g., Matt 11:16; 12:41, 42) and even in the immediate context (Matt 23:36), so that “this generation” can somehow point thousands of years into the future “instead of referring this to the time in which Christ lived” (Walvoord).

67. Dispensationalism’s teaching of the rapid “national regeneration of Israel” during the latter part of the seven-year Tribulation period (Fruchtenbaum) is incomprehensible and unbiblical because the alleged regeneration occurs only after the Church and the Holy Spirit have been removed from the earth, even though they were the only agents who could cause that regeneration: the institution of evangelism on the one hand and the agent of conversion on the other.

68. Contrary to dispensationalists’ view of the mark of the beast, most of them seeing in the beast’s number a series of three sixes, the Bible presents it not as three numbers (6-6-6) but one singular number (666) with the total numerical value of “six hundred and sixty-six” (Rev 13:18b).

69. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ expectation that the mark of the beast is to be some sort of “microchip implant” (Timothy Demy), Revelation 13 states that it is a mark, not an instrument of some kind.

70. Contrary to dispensationalists’ belief in a still-future geo-political kingdom which shall be catastrophically imposed on the world by war at the Battle of Armageddon, the Scriptures teach that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom that does not come with signs, and was already present in the first century, as when Jesus stated, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21).

71. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that their so-called literalistic premillennialism is superior to the other evangelical millennial views because Revelation 20:1-6 is one text that clearly sets forth their system, this view imposes the literalistic system unjustifiably and inconsistently on the most symbolic book in all the Bible, a book containing references to scorpions with faces like men and teeth like lions (Rev 9:7), fire-breathing prophets (Rev 11:5), a seven-headed beast (Rev 13:1), and more.

72. Dispensationalism’s claim that Revelation 20:1-6 is a clear text that establishes literalistic premillennialism has an inconsistency that is overlooked: it also precludes Christians who live in the dispensation of the Church from taking part in the millennium, since Revelation 20:4 limits the millennium to those who are beheaded and who resist the Beast, which are actions that occur (on their view) during the Great Tribulation, after the Church is raptured out of the world.

73. Despite the dispensationalists’ view of the glory of the millennium for Christ and his people, they teach, contrary to Scripture, that regenerated Gentile believers will be subservient to the Jews, as we see, for instance, in Herman Hoyt’s statement that “the redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of the earth.... So he exalts them above the Gentile nations.... On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.”

74. Despite dispensationalism’s claim that the Jews will be dominant over all peoples in the eschatological future, the Scripture teaches that “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.’” (Isa. 19:23-25).

75. Despite dispensationalism’s “plain and simple” method that undergirds its millennial views, it leads to the bizarre teaching that for 1000 years the earth will be inhabited by a mixed population of resurrected saints who return from heaven with Jesus living side-by-side with non-resurrected people, who will consist of unbelievers who allegedly but unaccountably survive the Second Coming as well as those who enter the millennium from the Great Tribulation as “a new generation of believers” (Walvoord).

76. Despite dispensationalists’ claim to reasonableness for their views, they hold the bizarre teaching that after 1000 years of dwelling side-by-side with resurrected saints who never get ill or die, a vast multitude of unresurrected sinners whose number is “like the sand of the seashore,” will dare to revolt against the glorified Christ and His millions of glorified saints (Rev 20:7-9).

77. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).

78. Despite the dispensationalists’ production of many adherents who “are excited about the very real potential for the rebuilding of Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem” (Randall Price) and who give funds for it, they do not understand that the whole idea of the temple system was associated with the old covenant which was “growing old” and was “ready to disappear” in the first century (Heb 8:13).

79. Contrary to dispensationalists’ expectation of a future physical temple in the millennium, wherein will be offered literal animal blood sacrifices, the New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the Passover and the Old Testament sacrificial system, so that Christ’s sacrifice was final, being “once for all” (Heb 10:10b), and that the new covenant causes the old covenant with its sacrifices to be “obsolete” (Heb 8:13).

80. Contrary to dispensationalism’s teaching that a physical temple will be rebuilt, the New Testament speaks of the building of the temple as the building of the Church in Christ, so that “the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph 2:21); the only temple seen in the book of Revelation is in Heaven, which is the real and eternal temple of which the earthly temporary temple was, according to the book of Hebrews, only a “shadow” or “copy” (Heb 8:5; 9:24).

81. Despite the dispensationalists’ attempt to re-interpret Ezekiel’s prophecies of a future sacrificial system by declaring that they are only “memorial” in character, and are therefore like the Lord’s Supper, the prophecies of that temple which they see as being physically “rebuilt” speak of sacrifices that effect “atonement” (Ezek. 43:20; 45:15, 17, 20); whereas the Lord’s Supper is a non-bloody memorial that recognizes Christ as the final blood-letting sacrifice.

82. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the Jews as important for the fulfillment of prophecy and their charge of “anti-Semitism” against evangelicals who do not see an exalted future for Israel (Hal Lindsey), they are presently urging Jews to return to Israel even though their understanding of the prophecy of Zech 13:8 teaches that “two-thirds of the children of Israel will perish” (Walvoord) once their return is completed.

83. Contrary to dispensationalism’s populist argument for “unconditional support” for Israel, the Bible views it as a form of Judeaolotry in that only God can demand our unconditional obligation; for “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and God even expressly warns Israel of her destruction “if you do not obey the Lord your God” (Deut 28:15, 63).

84. Contrary to dispensationalism’s structuring of history based on a negative principle wherein each dispensation involves “the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), so that each dispensation ends in failure and judgment, the Bible establishes a positive purpose in redemptive history, wherein “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (John 3:17) and “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” (2 Cor 5:19a).

85. Despite dispensationalism’s pessimism regarding the future, which expects that “the present age will end in apostasy and divine judgment” (Walvoord) and that “almost unbelievably hard times lie ahead” (Charles Ryrie), Christ declares that He has “all authority in heaven and on earth” and on that basis calls us actually to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt 28:18-20).

86. Despite the tendency of some dispensationalist scholars to interpret the Kingdom Parables negatively, so that they view the movement from hundredfold to sixty to thirty in Matt 13:8 as marking “the course of the age,” and in Matt 13:31-33 “the mustard seed refers to the perversion of God’s purpose in this age, while the leaven refers to the corruption of the divine agency” (J. D. Pentecost), Christ presents these parables as signifying “the kingdom of heaven” which He came to establish and which in other parables he presents as a treasure.

87. Despite dispensationalism’s historic argument for cultural withdrawal by claiming that we should not “polish brass on a sinking ship” (J. V. McGee) and that “God sent us to be fishers of men, not to clean up the fish bowl” (Hal Lindsey), the New Testament calls Christians to full cultural engagement in “exposing the works of darkness” (Eph 5:11) and bringing “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5).

88. Despite dispensationalism’s practical attempts to oppose social and moral evils, by its very nature it cannot develop a long-term view of social engagement nor articulate a coherent worldview because it removes God’s law from consideration which speaks to political and cultural issues.

89. Despite the dispensationalists’ charge that every non-dispensational system “lends itself to liberalism with only minor adjustments” (John Walvoord), it is dispensationalism itself which was considered modernism at the beginning of the twentieth century.

90. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of the gospel as the means of salvation, their evangelistic method and their foundational theology, both, encourage a presumptive faith (which is no faith at all) that can lead people into a false assurance of salvation when they are not truly converted, not recognizing that Christ did not so quickly accept professions of faith (e.g., when even though “many believed in His name,” Jesus, on His part, “was not entrusting Himself to them.”—John 2:23b-24a).

91. Despite the dispensationalists’ declaration that “genuine and wholesome spirituality is the goal of all Christian living” (Charles Ryrie), their theology actually encourages unrighteous living by teaching that Christians can simply declare Christ as Savior and then live any way they desire. Similarly, dispensationalism teaches that “God’s love can embrace sinful people unconditionally, with no binding requirements attached at all” (Zane Hodges), even though the Gospel teaches that Jesus “was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine’” (John 8:31) and that he declared “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27).

92. Despite the early versions of dispensationalism and the more popular contemporary variety of dispensationalism today teaching that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (L. S. Chafer and Zane Hodges), the Apostle Paul “solemnly testifies to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).

93. Contrary to dispensationalism’s tendency to distinguish receiving Christ as Savior and receiving him as Lord as two separate actions, so that saving faith involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever” (Zane Hodges), the Bible presents both realities as aspects of the one act of saving faith; for the New Testament calls men to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26; James 2:14-20).

94. "Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of “genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation. Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian” (Charles Ryrie)—even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19)."

95. Despite dispensationalism’s teaching regarding two kinds of Christians, one spiritual and one fleshly (resulting in a “great mass of carnal Christians,” Charles Ryrie), the Scripture makes no such class distinction, noting that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you,” so that “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom 8:9).

“Dispensationalism has thrown down the gauntlet: and it is high time that Covenant theologians take up the challenge and respond Biblically.” -- Dr. Robert L. Reymond, author, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

VISIT OUR WEBSTORE AT

www.NiceneCouncil.com
www.AgainstDispensationalism.com.

2010-04-12T09:38:00.002-05:00

"But we don’t live in perfect love; we are born into corruption, futility, and death. We are conceived by fallen flesh and born into a fallen world. We are dealt a set of fallen DNA from conception. The moment we leave the womb, we are placed in the arms of a broken person, then taken home to a place where broken people are working out their salvation with fear and trembling at best, or with no fear of God at worst. From our first interactions, we are mishandled, neglected, and broken in ways we did not choose and often cannot consciously identify. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the following generations, not as punishment but as inevitable consequence. We are all broken..."

Steve the builder

2010-01-12T15:13:00.004-06:00

China to Run Short 24 Million Wives

This article in my opinion points to what may be the logical end of an evil Government's social intervention. The problem is that at its core communism is a religion not a democracy. The solution they came up with is a mongrel mixture of ancient Chinese beliefs and the survival of the fittest all wrapped into an old pagan patriarchal system.

Let me explain, The People's Republic Family Planning policy, was enacted in 1979 under the guise of alleviating social, economic, and environmental problems . Chinese couples are allowed only one child with some exceptions, naturally the cultural preference is to have a male heir in accordance with their customs which led to the infanticide of little girls.

So now you have many people affected by an evil law, a law which enables the government to dictate to you how many children you can have. and according to them it is better to have a male if you can only have one child. In a non Judeo-Christian society (which mean no respect for the sanctity of the child's life since the cultural norm is to worship one's own ancestors) What will be end result? I dare speculate that it will be Invasion. Or the crash of a culture.

They most likely will invade and take women from somewhere else i.e Japan. The Japanese women might actually go willingly since Ahem.. their men don't "take care of their needs".
So undersexed Chinese men + neglected Japanese women= the empire of Chi-Pan, how bout them apples? but the point I am trying to make, all jokes aside is that when an evil government has unlimited power it goes into unlimited destructuion.

2010-01-11T15:34:00.002-06:00

Noisettes is an indie Rock band from Landan Inglan (London, England) Singer songwriter bassist Shingai Shoniwa's voice is to die for give it a good listen and let me now what you think.

2010-01-06T15:54:00.002-06:00

Merry Ethiopian Christmas !!!

2010-01-06T15:43:00.003-06:00

"When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest! For the voice of the Father bare witness to Thee, and called Thee His beloved Son! And the Spirit, in the form of a dove, confirmed the truthfulness of His word. O Christ our God, who hast revealed Thyself and hast enlightened the world, glory to Thee!"

7 Myths About Islam

2009-12-09T10:50:00.003-06:00

7 Myths About Islam

Posted using ShareThis

2009-12-07T17:56:00.004-06:00

Mengwelune, Lydia
1886 to 1966

A woman of God among pagan men.

I stumbled upon this amazing story while doing some reading on early missionary work in Africa, I was so moved that I decided to share this with you.

Of all the Christians that came from the work of the Basel Mission to the Bamoun region (1906-1915) during the German colonial period, as well as from the activity of the French Evangelical Mission Society of Paris there (1917-1957), Lydia Mengwelune has not gone unnoticed by Christian authors. For more than any other believer from this same region, her life and her conversion to the Christian faith have been brought to light through the writings of several missionaries. Even though the church at that time was filled with very respectable converts - elders, catechists, evangelists and pastors - none had their life story published in books and illustrated magazine articles, and none were featured on postcards that were in circulation in Cameroon as well as in Europe. An emblematic figure in an era that ignored the voices of women, she flashed like a lightning bolt out of that darkness with a brilliance that instantly lit up the court of King Njoya in Foumban and the Bamoun nobility of Nji Wamben. Her light burned brightly, blazing a path down country lanes and city streets as a remarkable evangelist who proclaimed the Good News of the love of God in Jesus Christ. Who was this woman?

Her Childhood

Lydia Mengwelune was the daughter of Nji Mofen and Mandu [2], and was born in the Njiyoum neighborhood of Foumban. Her father was a nobleman who carried out his duties as head of all the servants of No Pemboura, the sister of Ngungure, who was the mother of King Nsangou, who was in turn the father of King Njoya. Her mother Mandu was the cousin of King Njoya, through his paternal lineage. The name Mengwelune, which is composed of two words - Mengwen, which means "I was going", and lutne, which means "to rejoice" - had a deep impact on her character, as is often the case with names. The first impact was negative, as it concerned her life of sensuality with the king, but the second was positive, as it related to her journey in the Christian faith. Lydia was the second girl born to her mother, who gave birth to seventeen children, only one of whom was a boy! This only son was the embodiment of Nji Mofen's hopes for the lineage he would leave after his death. Lydia enjoyed a peaceful childhood, and her parents cherished her more than all their other children.

Her Youth

Lydia was a very beautiful girl. In spite of her young age, and in keeping with the customs of that time, she was given as a bride-to-be to Bankumbu, who was the warrior chief of King Njoya. Since she had not yet reached the required age for marriage, she was allowed - again, according to customary practice at that time - to enter the harem of her fiancé, and to spend her time there. Her future husband, who was beginning a campaign against the rebel Prime Minister Gbetkom-Ndombue on the front at Manga at that time, took her with him. That war went on for two years, and only ended when the cavalry of the Fula people from the lamido [3] of Banyo came to the aid of King Njoya and finally helped him to defeat the rebel and to re-establish peace.

During the return trip, Bankumbu, who had been feeding a long-standing disaffection with the king, decided to return to his native village of Mfowuon instead of regaining the capital at Foumban to resume his duties under the king. He requested that Lydia come with him, but she refused to go, on the pretext that the voyage was a very difficult one. Bankumbu went on to his home and lived there for a certain time, giving no answer to the king's many requests that he return to the capital at Foumban. He eventually undertook the trip and came back to settle peacefully in his quarters in Foumban. In the meantime, the king had discovered that he was part of a group that was plotting against him. The king had Bankumbu killed, even though he had been the general of his army for a long time, and had protected him from multiple and varied attacks. In his anger, the king not only had his general killed, but also Bankumbu's mother and brother, all on the same day. The entire town of Foumban was terribly upset by this slaughter.

Lydia had not yet overcome the pain and the fear caused by this brutal separation from her fiancé when another, even more violent tragedy struck her entire family. Her father, Nji Mofen, was accused of having killed his neighbor. The accusation came from the local Bamoun region seer who consulted the trapdoor spider, considered to have the power of revealing secrets. Upon hearing of the matter, the king pronounced a verdict without appeal and sentenced him to hang immediately, a sentence that was not in keeping with the legislation in effect at that time. As a result of that judgment and execution, Mandu, her daughter Lydia, her only son, all her other children and all of Mofen's other wives were banished, and were liable to be sold or distributed to anyone, according to the king's wishes. However, No Njapdunke, the Queen Mother of King Njoya, intervened for Mandu so that she and her children, as well as all of Nji Mofen's possessions, would come to no harm. She was able to do this in light of her parental relationship to the king. She had Nji Mofen's only son succeed him so that he would always be remembered. To comfort Mandu, No Njapdunke often asked her to come and spend time with her, in spite of all that had happened with her husband. The king, knowing that he should have intervened, came to regret his rush to judgment, but he had acted within his rights in the light of his duties. Nonetheless, wasn't Mandu a close blood relative of the king? She had to forget the past and look toward the future. No Njapdunke took care of Mandu and her children's needs. Lydia accompanied her mother when she went on her visits to the palace. Having noticed her beauty and her intelligence, No Njapdunke asked her mother if she could keep her there and see to her education, as a gift of consolation to her. Mandu gratefully accepted.

Dancer to the king

While she lived at the palace, Lydia received all the benefits of being under the good care of No Njapdunke. She was given gifts of all kinds: clothing, shoes, finery, beauty oils… and even a special diet, as she was under the protection of the Queen Mother. She wanted for nothing. She was very gracious, courteous and intelligent. Her beauty was one of the things people talked about all over the palace, whether among the king's wives, among the servants, or among the commoners who came to the palace on business. All were struck by the fresh nature of her beauty. Who did she belong to? Who would dare to approach No Njapdunke in asking for her hand? All the ambitious attention of the various young men and noblemen came up against the presence of the Queen Mother. Indeed, she was more to be feared than her own son, the king. Nonetheless, innocent as ever, Lydia Mengwelune's presence just kept on shining on everyone, much as a bright moon shines in a beautiful starry night. Since the king visited his mother Njapdunke every day, he soon saw the incredibly beautiful Lydia and began to love her in spite of the interdict against such things within the context of an extended family. Even with the primacy the king enjoyed over the institutions of the Bamoun people, he could not marry her, as he would be accused of incest. Nonetheless, he was unable to resist Lydia Mengwelune's intensely seductive beauty and intelligence. For this reason, his mother advised him to have her as a concubine. Didn't all men have concubines? Who could condemn the king for that?

In this manner, Lydia became the king's friend, much to the detriment of all his wives. The women from this latter group who had been friends to the king began to despise her. Lydia gave the king pleasure whenever he asked for it. In return, he gave her so many gifts that all his wives became jealous. Like the other royal concubines, Lydia had lodgings in a house next to the palace. Men of meager means could consort with these concubines on the sly. Lydia, however, received all the attention of the young king. He especially enjoyed conversation with her because they were approximately the same age. Since the king had befriended her, Lydia, in turn, had nurtured the courage to confront him and to bring up many of life's questions in their discussions. The king was very fond of her company.

Lydia was not only beautiful, but she also knew how to dance, and the art of the dance was very much admired by the Bamoun in those days. Her silhouette and her gestures absolutely captivated the king when she performed certain dances. To add to his pleasure, King Njoya invited her to dance a new composition with him when he wore a mask. The combination of the musical singing of the tune and the choreography of their steps as they danced together allowed King Njoya and Lydia to reach the high point of their sensual relationship. At such moments, the king was unable to hide his natural desire for a young woman who was not his wife, but who was the one that gave him the emotional satisfaction he needed. As they danced, cries of appreciation came from the crowd in Bamoun: "A pu tetune!" ("That's very good!").

Their appreciative cries were being called out for the last time, although neither party was aware of it at the time. A succession of events was occurring in the kingdom, events that were going to affect every last person. Lydia Mengwelune, dancer to the king, was going to leave him forever and find true joy in the things of the kingdom of God. She was going to leave the pleasures she enjoyed with King Njoya in order to embrace the joy of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

A Freed Servant of Jesus Christ

While she lived at the palace, which was the epicenter of all the royal institutions, and the place where all problems concerning the Bamoun people were dealt with, Lydia had a privileged position: she was King Njoya's principal conversation partner. He told her about many events, and often discussed them with her. They had spoken at length about the help of the Fula cavalry that had come from the Banyo chief during the insurrection of Prime Minister Gbetkom-Ndombue, and also about the whites who had arrived with their soldiers, as well as about other white merchants that came later. In fact, the Germans wanted to collaborate with King Njoya, and they came to him with an offer of friendship from their king. An employee of one of these merchants named Samé had spoken about the God who had sent his son to save the world. Having heard these strange stories, King Njoya called the man and made serious inquiries about this message. He also had the stories transcribed into the Shumom language. He was so interested in knowing about this God that he offered Samé money so that he could stay and teach the Bamoun people. He declined the offer however, and said that messengers from God would come one day. Samé went on his way, and no-one knows where he came from.

Later on, two young Bamoun named Mah and Nguin, who had gone to Bali to visit family, stayed on there for schooling. In addition to learning how to write, they learned the wonderful stories of the Word of God. When they returned to Foumban, they told their family about what they had learned, and the stories were circulated until they reached the king. Having listened to these young people and having been touched by hearing these stories that were unknown among his people, the king sent the pair back to Bali to ask the white people if they would also come and teach these stories to the Bamoun.

On April 10, 1906, a German pastor from the Basel Mission named Martin Gohring arrived in Foumban, in answer to the king's request. The excitement this caused could be felt in the whole city. King Njoya gave them the highest hill in the city, at Njisse. He quickly had lodgings and a school built, as well as the Nda Nyinyi (the house of God), the church, built in the central marketplace. The king himself listened attentively to the sermons. He also told his wives and his daughters to attend the meetings regularly. Rhein-Wuhrmann explains what happened next:
Mengwelune, the king's friend, went also. More than all the other women, she was moved by what she heard. Shortly thereafter, the king sensed that a great change was taking place in the young woman's heart. She didn't seek his presence as often as before. She could often be seen alone, lost in her thoughts, crying. She never missed a worship service, but little by little, she was moving away from the king.

One day she appeared before the king and humbly but firmly told him: "I have been going to the worship service of the Christians every day that they call Sunday. They say many good things, and their words have entered my heart. Their God says: 'Happy are those who have a pure heart,' but I do not have a pure heart, and I have done much wrong. The king's wives hate me, and they are right to do so. I can no longer be the king's friend. May he give me away in marriage to a good man!"

This came as a cruel blow to King Njoya. He begged and pleaded with Lydia, and gave her many presents and caresses, but nothing could change her mind. The king's efforts were of no account to the young lady because her very soul was in torment about the new message that she had heard. The king came to believe that he had not lost the battle, and that the change that had come about in the life of his friend was only the passing fancy of a woman. He was all the more astonished and disappointed when Lydia told him that she wanted to become a Christian and that she was now taking catechism classes that would prepare her for baptism. [4]
Light comes to Nji Wamben

Lydia Mengwelune became the 31st wife of Nji Wamben, a nobleman who was in the king's service. She was a fine present, and her husband hoped that she would help him get closer to the king in light of his royal ancestry and his prior history with the king. Nji Wamben showered her with presents and gave her the highest standing among all his wives. He loved to have her near him when he was not on duty in the court because her beauty, her intelligence and her other qualities contributed to the increased respect he enjoyed. He knew that his wife had adopted the Christian faith, and he allowed her to attend the worship services even though he did not attend himself. He believed that in time, her manner of thinking would fade away.

In the meantime, Lydia was a catechist in the school in Njisse, and she was growing rapidly in the faith. The more she understood, the more she allowed older practices that were not in keeping with the Word of God to fall away: making sacrifices to the dead, and the killing of harmless chameleons that according to Bamoun beliefs were thought to be messengers of death. She became unafraid of the power of the trapdoor spider, a belief that had brought about the death of her father. She no longer feared spirits, witchdoctors, and the evil eye. God was now in charge of her life. Her contemporaries and those who were baptized with her recount that her faith and her love were both quite vibrant. While she was still very young and living with her mother, she had had a dream that she only understood the meaning of now that she was living as a Christian.

All the progress in her spiritual life and the knowledge she had gained from the catechism led her to be among the first 80 Bamoun candidates for baptism, out of a class of 166. It was at this time that she was given the baptismal name of Lydia, because she also could say, "The Lord has opened my heart." She was baptized Lydia Mengwelune on December 25, 1909, by Pastor Martin Gohring.

Persecution and Witness

Lydia's husband, Nji Wamben, had become exasperated by the commitment that his wife was making to the Christian faith. He pleaded with her serenely, saying, "Please don't cause me this grief and shame; do not leave aside the customs of your fathers." [5] King Njoya began to incite Nji Wamben to persecute his wife. He began to treat his faithful wife cruelly, and progressed from reproaches and humiliations to threats and actual physical torture. He had Lydia removed from her beautiful house and gave her a servant's hut to live in. The other wives made fun of her and treated her with contempt. Her right to receive help from the slaves was taken away, and her husband no longer paid any attention to her except to call her so that he could vent his anger at her over anything that happened that might be her fault. He even beat her so violently that she was left with permanent scars. Lydia had always been a pampered child and had never been treated in such a terrible way.

Lydia shouldered her trials just as she carried her cross, finding comfort and consolation in the Word of God. In time however, her living conditions became unbearable. She went to Ms. Rhein-Wuhrmann, one of the missionaries there, and said, "Take me as your servant girl. I cannot stand to live with my husband any longer." [6] This missionary lady told her to honor her Christian faith in the circumstances she was in, and that Jesus would help her more than she could help herself. She also went to speak with Lydia's husband, Nji Wamben, and found him to be quite embarrassed by the fact that he loved his wife, but hated Christianity. Pressured by other noblemen to do so, he continued to mistreat Lydia. Ms. Wuhrmann wrote: "All of us at the mission felt great pity for Lydia because we were powerless witnesses to her situation, and she was suffering terribly." [7]

During the First World War (1914-1918), the German missionaries left Foumban in chains, escorted by the English. Lydia lost the help she had found in Ms. Rhein-Wuhrmann, her advisor and friend. She cried out, "I am like an orphan now, an orphan!" "God is your Father, dear Lydia, and Jesus your advisor," answered her dear friend. With that exchange, Ms. Rhein-Wuhrmann and Lydia, two disciples of Christ, were separated. [8]

The two years that followed the missionaries' departure (1916-1918), were increasingly difficult for the small Christian community in Foumban, as one persecution followed another. King Njoya outlawed the practice of the Christian faith in his kingdom and converted to Islam. He asked that all his subjects become Muslim, just as he had. Muslim husbands like Nji Wamben and Nji Mama - the spouse of Shachembe Marguerite, a friend of Lydia's - who held high positions in the royal court, found themselves forced to persecute their Christian wives in order to keep favor with the king. On several occasions, churches were attacked by these very officials, who had their wives taken away in a very violent manner. On another occasion, the king's own soldiers carried out the orders. In spite of her own suffering, Lydia sought out the persecuted and gave them strength and courage. She braved humiliation in her own milieu, and her life was her confession of faith. Through her witness, the other wives of her husband came to faith in Jesus Christ.

In Alexandra Loumpet-Galitzine's book, Njoya and the Bamoun Kingdom, the author of Lydia's biography writes:
Her faith and her love for the savior were very much alive. She was an example to the other wives. Lydia loved her husband and didn't stand for any disobedience on the part of the other wives. Her firm Christian character left the other wives without excuse. When she returned from worship, she gathered all her fellow wives around her and spoke to them about the Christ who died for the sins of the whole world… She also dispensed good advice to all the people who worked for the chief. This chief, who was a Muslim, saw their good behavior and the good example they set, and allowed everyone to go to the Christian meetings. On Sunday, a great number of men and women could be seen going to church, led there by this brave disciple of the Lord. [9] Such eyewitness accounts came from others as well, not only from Christians. Nji Wamben, her husband, also saw the good influence that Lydia had on his affairs, because a Christian spirit came to influence every aspect of the lives of his wives, who were also mothers and housekeepers. His behavior towards his Christian wife Lydia changed, and he allowed his other wives to attend the pre-baptismal catechism. One day he told Ms. Wuhrmann, "Ever since my wives became Christian or started to attend the teaching that leads to baptism, life in my house has changed a lot. I don't hear quarreling any more, only joyful singing, and the work gets done peaceably and well. Basically, everything is better than it used to be." [10]
That is how Lydia, who was a persecuted Christian wife, changed the outlook and the beliefs of her husband Nji Wamben, his wives, their children and their servants. They had formerly held to traditional religion, then they became Muslim, and finally, thanks to the light of Christ, they became Christians.

Elder in the Church

The German missionaries had not organized the church by setting up the ministry of deacon, elder and evangelist, much less that of pastor. They had given themselves to the preparation of disciples and overseers, or catechists, to go out and preach and teach. Later, the Paris Mission settled in that region, having sent Pastor Elie Allégret, who first visited Foumban in 1917. After that first visit, he sent a Douala man named Max Mpacko there, the first teacher to arrive with a formal education. It was this bright man who helped the church - a church that had emerged victoriously from persecution - to get organized by choosing elders. A total of eight elders were chosen from a community of 300 souls. Four men and four women - Lydia was one of them - were chosen, and Lydia was certainly chosen because of her witness. Ms. Wuhrmann writes: "And what a memorable day it was when the most influential Christians: Mose Yeyap, Josué Muishe, Jean Njikam and others called Lydia to sit with them as a church elder! A woman, seated in the council of men! With the same voting rights, no less! A woman, such a despised creature among the pagans! It was unbelievable! But these community leaders had exercised good judgment and had made a good choice." 11]

As an elder, Lydia was a superb teacher in the Girls School in Njisse, where she was assistant to Ms. Wuhrmann. But even more, whether at home or elsewhere, she was always invested in good works and in caring for the destitute.

Teacher in the Girls School

Taking advantage of her Swiss nationality, Ms. Wuhrmann returned to Foumban in the service of the Paris Mission on the 10th of July, 1920, after the war. She reorganized the school that until then had been run by Paolo Pepuere, one of King Njoya's brothers. Since the non-Christian husbands did not want a man teaching their wives, the burden on Ms. Wuhrmann increased dramatically: enrollment quadrupled, going from 80 students to 320. She wrote: "A very mixed group pressed in all around me during the lessons: old women who were tired and worn out, young women full of life, pretty women from the king's court, and the very poor, who had been raised in miserable slave huts. Virtually all of them wanted to have contact with Jesus… I did not have enough time to take care of all of these women outside of the lesson time, even though I wished that I could. For hours at a time, my dear Lydia, who was one of the elders in the church, filled in for me." [12]

As the various written testimonies of missionaries at the time attest, Lydia devotedly carried out her work. Charles Maître, in commentary written to supplement 85 images showing the work in Cameroon from 1924 to 1925, said this about image number 70: "Lydia, one of our brave Christians. You can see the hairstyle, the tattoos, the pierced ear, the two 3-Mark coins, but what you can't see is the faithfulness and devotion of this brave woman who is now overseer of the Girls School." [13] When Ms. Wuhrmann left Foumban after her second missionary term, she put all the catechetical teaching in Lydia's hands. In her book, Portraits of Women in Cameroon, published in 1931, she mentions the fact that Lydia had assumed that task. For a long time, Lydia continued to teach the faith to generations of Bamoun Christian women whose lives were transformed, and who influenced their marriages, their children, and their society.

Itinerant Evangelist

Lydia was also chosen as an elder because she exercised her gift for evangelization. Jean Njimonia writes: "She became an elder because she loved to serve. The church has had women elders and still has them, but Lydia was an elder par excellence. She visits our neighborhood churches and gives good counsel to catechists and Christians alike. She knows how to comfort brothers who are afflicted. She feeds orphaned children that she has taken in of her own free will. She has taught many catechists' wives. Ms. Rhein-Wuhrmann loves her more than anything else. She calls her 'friend' and it is quite truly so." [14]

That witness of a native missionary and the witness of other missionaries show that Lydia was committed to preaching the Good News, not only in her own home and her local church, but beyond. She had a broad view of the ministry entrusted to her. As the Lord Jesus said: "To whom much is given, much will be required." Because Lydia had received much from the Lord, she gave back enough of what she had gotten, and even more.

Lydia did not only preach, as is often the case with evangelists. What she taught was made real through her actions as well. She cared for sick Christians and catechists alike, giving them encouragement. She received women who had been persecuted and chased from their homes because of their faith, and saw to their protection. At times, there were four young women living in her house, and sometimes more. If someone in the church had left town because of persecution or had been temporarily put out of the community of faith because of sin, Lydia had no peace until she went out and found that person. Sometimes, she even brought them home with her. In light of her social standing, she was not allowed to walk the paths of neighboring villages alone, so Nji Wamben gave her some slaves, and they would always go with her.

Lydia's zeal for evangelism makes it clear that her faith was not simply a question of vocation. She belonged so totally to her Lord that everything she did was of an evangelistic nature. Lydia's faith was active in service and was evident in the loving things she did for others, all to the greater glory of God.

The Meaning of Jesus Christ in Her Life

Lydia Mengwelune was a woman whose faith in Jesus Christ could be described as fervent. She had only learned to read and write in her native language, which was Bamoun. She had received no schooling in French or in German because she was already an adult by the time a school opened in Foumban. She had no Bible School training in evangelism. However, changed through her in-depth study of the Bible and her love for Jesus, she became one of the great figures of the Christian faith in the Bamoun region and in Cameroon, even in Africa one could say, and even the whole world.

Who was Jesus to this woman who committed herself body and soul to serve Him, even at the risk of her life? What follows is one of the last accounts of her beautiful profession of faith in Christ:
In 1924, as the 14th of July grew near, the king called his chamberlain and told him: 'Talk to your wife, Mengwelune, and tell her to dance for the white people's holiday.' Nji Wamben told me himself that his answer to the king was: "My King knows very well that Mengwelune is a Christian and that Christians do not dance. How can I tell her to do what the king commands?" So Njoya sent two messengers to plead with her, that she might do the king's bidding. He also promised her goats, palm oil, corn, peanuts, and the most beautifully made scarf from the royal looms. Lydia laughed when she received the message, thinking that it must be a joke. A little later, she realized that it was a serious proposition. This was her answer: "Go and tell the king that Mengwelune needs her feet and her hands, as well as her body and her heart, for her service to God." The king did not insist any further. Lydia had a few laughs over that pretentious request and was able to show in that incident how foreign all those things were to her now, all those things that used to make her so happy. [15]
Through such incidents, Lydia was able to help the king and her husband Nji wamben - two men who were friends, but who had persecuted her - to understand who Jesus Christ was for her. By staying faithful to Jesus, she shared the Gospel with her husband - he who had humiliated and mistreated her - and he eventually came to faith in Christ. An anonymous source once cried out: "Is there anyone among all the missionaries and all the Christians who has not praised Lydia for her great faith and for her love in the service of God? She is the only native Christian woman whose name is known both here and in Europe, as well as in America and everywhere else. May our Lord keep sending such women elders to his poor Bamoun church! What a great native Christian!" [16]

The memory of Lydia Mengwelune is still very much alive, especially in Foumban, but also in the whole Bamoun region. Generations of Christians have been born and have multiplied through the witness of this faithful disciple. The church in the Bamoun region could count 35 places of worship in 1931, and it grew into two Synods: North Noun (principal center at Foumban), and South Noun (principal center at Foumbot). The church in Foumban is proud to have the first mega-church of Cameroon: called "Ndaambassie," it seats more than 14,000 people. Such is the fruit borne by Lydia Mengwelune, who has gone on to rejoice with Her Lord in His Kingdom. [17]

Robert Adamou Pindzié

Dear friend, my mother, do you think of me and do you have sleepless nights as I do because of you? Oh, I know that often you can't sleep when you think of me. I want to thank you for having written the story of my life in a book. If everything is well with me in Foumban, it is thanks to you; if people love me and say good things about me, you are the reason why that is so. I have been very sick and my body was broken. I thought I was going to die (rheumatoid arthritis); now however, I am well again. (News of several people follows…) I, who am your child, greet you warmly.

Lydia Mengwelune
Bibliography:

Francis Grob, Témoins Camerounais de l'Evangile (les Origines de l'Eglise Evangélique) [Cameroonian Witnesses to the Gospel (The Origins of the Evangelical Church)] (Yaoundé : Editions CLE, 1967).
Alexandra Loumpet-Galitzine, Njoya et le royaume Bamoun. Les archives de la Société des Missions Evangéliques de Paris, [Njoya and the Bamoun Kingdom. Archives of the Paris Evangelical Missions Society] (Paris : Karthala Editions, 2006).
Joseph Mfochive, Moise Lamere, Rodolphe Peshandon, Quatre vingt ans de christianisme en pays bamoun [Eighty Years of Christianity in the Bamoun Region] (Foumban, 1986).
Henri Nicod, La Danseuse du roi [Dancer to the king] (Neuchâtel : Delachaux and Niestle, 1950).
Anna Rhein-Wuhrmann, Fumban die Stadt auf dem Schutte, Arbeitbund Ernte im Missiondienst in Kamerun (Basel: Basler Missionsbuchhandlung GmbH, 1948).
-------, Au Cameroon, Portraits de Femmes [Portraits of Women in Cameroon] translated from the German by Ms. E. Lack (Paris: Société des Missions Evangéliques, 1931).
Jap Van Slageren, Les origines de l'église Evangélique au Cameroun. Missions et christianisme autochtone [The Origins of the Evangelical Church in Cameroon. Missions and Native Christianity] (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972).

This article, received in 2008, was researched and written by Rev. Robert Adamou Pindzié, 2007-2008 Project Luke Fellow. Rev. Pindzié is a professor in the Faculté de Théologie Evangélique du Cameroun [Evangelical Seminary of Cameroon] in Yaoundé.

2009-10-27T16:04:00.003-05:00

He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. Proverbs 29:1

...a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God.

Psalm 78:8

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou those, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind In Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

2009-07-28T09:30:00.001-05:00

Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble.
JOB: 14:1

2009-04-17T16:19:00.000-05:00

Pascal

Faites. mon Dieu, que dans une uniformité toujours égale je reçoive toute sorte d'événements, puisque nous ne savons ce que nous devons demander. "Bring it to pass, my God, that I accept every sort of occurrence in an ever level peace of spirit, since we do not know what it is that we should ask for."

La maladie principale de l'homme est la curiosité inquiète des choses qu'il ne peut savoir; et il ne lui est pas si mauvais d'être dans l'erreur, que dans cette curiosité inutile. "What ails men primarily is a giddy curiosity about things that they cannot possibly know; they are not even harmed so much by being in error as by being in this state of useless curiosity."

Il faut qu'on n'en puisse dire, ni: "Il est mathématicien", ni "prédicateur", ni "éloquent", mais "il est honnête homme". Cette qualité universelle me plaît seule. "One really ought to be able to say of a man, not 'There goes a mathematician'--or 'preacher' or 'eloquent speaker'--but 'There's an honest man.' This universal quality alone is what appeals to me."

La science des choses extérieures ne me consolera pas de l'ignorance de la morale, au temps d'affliction; mais la science des moeurs me consolera toujours de l'ignorance des sciences extérieures. "Knowledge of external things will not console me over my ignorance of moral facts in times of affliction, but knowledge of the moral way will always console me over my ignorance of the external sciences."

Car enfin, qu'est-ce que l'homme dans la nature? Un néant à l'égard de l'infini, un tout à l'égard du néant, un milieu entre rien et tout. Infiniment éloigné de comprendre les extrêmes, la fin des choses et leur principe sont pour lui invinciblement cachés dans un secret impénétrable, également incapable de voir le néant d'où il est tiré, et l'infini où il est englouti.

ENGRIIISHHH at least some of it
"For at last, what is man in his natural state? A void with regard to infinity, a totality with regard to the void, a midway between nothing and everything. Infinitely far from understanding the extremes, the end of things and their beginning are for him invincibly hidden in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the void from which he has been lifted and the infinite in which he is enveloped."

2009-04-10T20:23:00.002-05:00

To THEE the Champion leader O conqueror of Death Glorious GOD! We give thanks and praise O lion of Judah King of kings. YOU will wipe out all your enemies, all the mockers, all the dogs. The grave could not contain your Majesty you are the great Potentate of all worlds, all time, and all things. You are the great I AM, La Raison d'être. JESUS SON of GOD!

We glorify your name! we worship you! Jesus there is none like you!

2009-03-27T08:18:00.000-05:00

Now this is Funny!

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow...what a worthy goal', I told her. 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'.

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

Author unknown

2009-03-23T22:23:00.001-05:00

Romains 1:18-21

18La colère de Dieu se révèle du ciel contre toute impiété et toute injustice des hommes qui retiennent injustement la vérité captive,

19car ce qu'on peut connaître de Dieu est manifeste pour eux, Dieu le leur ayant fait connaître.

20En effet, les perfections invisibles de Dieu, sa puissance éternelle et sa divinité, se voient comme à l'oeil, depuis la création du monde, quand on les considère dans ses ouvrages. Ils sont donc inexcusables,

21puisque ayant connu Dieu, ils ne l'ont point glorifié comme Dieu, et ne lui ont point rendu grâces; mais ils se sont égarés dans leurs pensées, et leur coeur sans intelligence a été plongé dans les ténèbres.

2008-11-29T11:26:00.000-06:00

The One Hundred Forty Sixth Psalm
Lauda, anima mea.

PRAISE the LORD, O my soul: while I live, will I praise the LORD; * yea, as long as I have any being, I will sing praises unto my God.

O put not your trust in princes, nor in any child of man; * for there is no help in them.

For when the breath of man goeth forth, he shall turn again to his earth, * and then all his thoughts perish.

Blessed is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, * and whose hope is in the LORD his God:

Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that therein is; * who keepeth his promise for ever;

Who helpeth them to right that suffer wrong; * who feedeth the hungry.

The LORD looseth men out of prison; * the LORD giveth sight to the blind.

The LORD helpeth them that are fallen; * the LORD careth for the righteous.

The LORD careth for the strangers; he defendeth the fatherless and widow: * as for the way of the ungodly, he turneth it upside down.

The LORD thy God, O Sion, shall be King for ever-more, * and throughout all generations.

2008-10-10T08:19:00.001-05:00

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles." [cut and paste from the published text of Obama's speech]

2008-09-26T13:06:00.001-05:00

An Akathist in Praise of God's Creation
Metropolitan Tryphon (Turkestanov)

Kontakion 1

Incorruptible Lord, your right hand controls the whole course of human life, according to the decrees of your Providence for our salvation.

We give you thanks for all your blessings, known and unknown:
for our earthly life and for the heavenly joys of your kingdom which is to come.
Henceforth extend your mercies towards us as we sing:
Glory to you, O God, from age to age!

Ikos 1

I was born a weak, defenceless child, but your angel, spreading his radiant wings, guarded my cradle. From my birth, your love has illumined my paths, and has wondrously guided me towards the light of eternity. From my first day until now, the generous gifts of your providence have been wonderfully showered upon me. I give you thanks, and with all those who have come to know you, I exclaim:

Glory to you for calling me into being.
Glory to you for spreading out before me the beauty of the universe,
Glory to you for revealing to me through heaven and earth the eternal book of wisdom,
Glory to your eternity within this fleeting world,
Glory to you for your mercies, seen and unseen,
Glory to you for every sigh of my sorrow,
Glory to you for every step in my life’s journey, for every moment of joy,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 2

O Lord, how lovely it is to be your guest:
Breeze full of scent; mountains reaching to the skies;
Waters like a boundless mirror,
Reflecting the sun’s golden rays and the scudding clouds.
All nature murmurs mysteriously, breathing depths of tenderness,
Birds and beasts bear the imprint of your love,
Blessed are you, mother earth, in your fleeting loveliness,
Which wakens our yearning for happiness that will last for ever
In the land where, amid beauty that grows not old,
Rings out the cry: Alleluia!

Ikos 2

You brought me into this life as into an enchanted paradise. We have seen the sky, like a deep blue cup ringing with birds in the azure heights. We have listened to the soothing murmur of the forest and the sweet-sounding music of the waters. We have tasted fragrant fruit of fine flavour and sweet-scented honey. How pleasant is our stay with you on earth: it is a joy to be your guest.

Glory to you for the feast-day of life.
Glory to you for the perfume of lilies and roses,
Glory to you for each different taste of berry and fruit,
Glory to you for the sparkling silver of early morning dew,
Glory to you for each smiling, peaceful awakening,
Glory to you for eternal life in us, a messenger of heaven,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 3

In the strength of the Holy Spirit each flower gives out its scent - sweet perfume, delicate colour, beauty of the whole universe revealed in the tiniest thing. Glory and honour to God the Giver of life, who covers the fields with their carpet of flowers, crowns the plains with harvest of gold and the blue of corn-flowers, and our souls with the joy of contemplating him. O be joyful and sing to him: Alleluia!

Ikos 3

How glorious you are in the triumph of spring, when every creature awakes to new life and joyfully sings your praises with a thousand tongues: you are the source of life, the conqueror of death. By the light of the moon nightingales sing: the plains and the woods put on their wedding garment, white as snow. All the earth is your promised bride awaiting her bridegroom who does not know decay. If the grass of the field is clothed like this, how gloriously shall we be transfigured in the coming age of the resurrection: how radiant our bodies, how resplendent our souls!

Glory to you, bringing from the darkness of the earth an endless variety of colours, tastes and scents,
Glory to you for the warmth and tenderness of the world of nature,
Glory to you for surrounding us with thousands of your works,
Glory to you for the depth of your wisdom: the whole world is a living sign of it,
Glory to you: on my knees, I kiss the traces of your unseen hand,
Glory to you for setting before us the dazzling light of eternal life,
Glory to you for the hope of the unutterable, imperishable beauty of immortality,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 4

How filled with sweetness are those whose thoughts dwell on you: how life-giving your holy Word; to speak with you is more soothing than anointing with oil, sweeter than the honeycomb. Praying to you refreshes us and gives us wings: our hearts overflow with warmth; a majesty filled with wisdom permeates nature and all of life! Where you are not, there is only emptiness. Where you are, the soul is filled with abundance, and its song resounds like a torrent of life: Alleluia!

Ikos 4

When over the earth the light of the setting sun fades away, when the peace of eternal sleep, and the quiet of the declining day reign over all, I see your dwelling-place like tents filled with light, reflected in the shapes of the clouds at dusk: fiery and purple, gold and blue, they speak prophet-like of the ineffable beauty of your heavenly court, and solemnly call: let us go to the Father!

Glory to you in the quiet hour of evening,
Glory to you, covering the world with deep peace,
Glory to you for the last ray of the setting sun,
Glory to you for the rest of blissful sleep,
Glory to you for your mercy in the midst of darkness, when the whole world has parted company with us,
Glory to you for the tender emotion of a soul moved to prayer,
Glory to you for the pledge of our awakening on the day which has no evening,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 5

The storms of life do not frighten those whose hearts are ablaze with the light of your flame. Outside is the darkness of the whirlwind, the terror and howling of the storm. But in their souls reign quiet and light. Christ is there, and the heart sings: Alleluia!

Ikos 5

I see your heaven glowing with stars. How rich you are, how much light is yours! Eternity watches me by the rays of the distant stars: I am small, insignificant, but the Lord is with me, his loving hand protects me wherever I go.

Glory to you for the trouble you take for me at all times,
Glory for the people your Providence gave me to meet,
Glory to you for the love of my dear ones, the faithfulness of friends,
Glory to you for the gentleness of the animals which serve me,
Glory to you for the light-filled moments of life,
Glory to you for the radiant joy in my heart,
Glory to you for the joy of living, moving and seeing,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 6

How great and how close you are in the powerful track of the storm; how mighty your right arm in the blinding flash of the lightning; how awesome is your greatness! The voice of the Lord is over the fields and amid the rustling forests, the voice of the Lord is in the birth of thunder and of rain, the voice of the Lord is over the many waters. Praise to you in the roar of mountains ablaze. You shake the earth like a garment. You pile up to the sky the waves of the sea. Praise to you, bringing low the pride of man, bring from his heart the cry of repentance: Alleluia!

Ikos 6

When the lightening flash has lit up the feasting-hall, how feeble seems the light of the lamps. Likewise, amidst the strongest joys of my existence, you suddenly flashed in my soul. After your blinding light, how drab, dull and unreal seemed all those joys! Passionately, my soul would run after you.

Glory to you, the Goal in whom mankind’s highest dreams come true,
Glory to you, for our unquenchable thirst for communion with god,
Glory to you, making us dissatisfied with earthly things,
Glory to you, clothing us with the finest rays of your light,
Glory to you, destroying the power of the spirits of darkness, dooming all evil to destruction,
Glory to you for the joy of hearing your voice, for the happiness of your presence and of living in your love,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 7

In the wondrous blending of sounds it is your call we hear. In the harmony of many voices, stirred by the musical tones, dazzled by art’s creativeness, we learn from you the splendour of melody and song, and receive a foretaste of the coming kingdom. All true beauty draws the soul towards you in powerful invocation, and makes it sing triumphantly: Alleluia!

Ikos 7

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit enlightens the thoughts of artists, poets, and scientists. Their great minds receive from you prophetic insights into your laws, and reveal to us the depth of your creative wisdom. Unwittingly, their works speak of you; how great you are in all you have created, how great you are in man!

Glory to you, showing your unfathomable might in the laws of the universe!
Glory to you, for all nature is permeated by your laws,
Glory to you for what you have revealed to us in your goodness,
Glory to you for all that remains hidden from us in your wisdom,
Glory to you for the inventiveness of the human mind,
Glory to you for the invigorating effort of work,
Glory to you for the tongues of fire which bring inspiration,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 8

How near you are in the days of sickness; you yourself visit the sick; you bend over the sufferer’s bed: his heart speaks to you. With your peace you enlighten the soul burdened with affliction and pain: you send unexpected help. You comfort, you are Love, brining trial and salvation, and to you we sing the hymn: Alleluia!

Ikos 8

When in childhood I called upon you consciously for the first time, you heard my prayer and sacred peace came down into my soul. Then I understood that you are good; blessed are those who turn to you. Unceasingly, I started to call upon you, and now I call upon your Name:

Glory to you, satisfying my desires with good things,
Glory to you, watching over me day and night,
Glory to you, calming tribulations and bereavement with the healing flow of time,
Glory to you, no loss is irreparable when you are there, to all you give eternal life,
Glory to you, making immortal all that is lofty and good, promising to welcome the dead,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 9

Why is it that on a feastday the whole of nature mysteriously smiles? Why does a marvelous lightness then fill our hearts, to which nothing earthly can be compared? The very air in the altar and in God’s house becomes luminous. It is the breath of grace, the reflection of the glory of Mount Tabor; heaven and earth then sing this praise: Alleluia!

Ikos 9

When you inspire me to serve my neighbor, and make humility shine in my soul, one of your deep-piercing rays of light falls into my heart: it then becomes glowing, like iron in the furnace. I have seen your Face, mysterious and elusive.

Glory to you, transfiguring our lives with deeds of love,
Glory to you, making wonderfully sweet each one of your commandments,
Glory to you, clearly present in fragrant compassion,
Glory to you, sending us failures and afflictions to make us sensitive to other people’s sufferings,
Glory to you, promising high rewards for precious good deeds,
Glory to you, welcoming the impulse of our heart’s love,
Glory to you, for raising love above everything on earth or in heaven,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 10

No one can put together what has crumbled into dust, but you can heal men whose conscience has become twisted; you give the soul its former beauty, which long ago it had lost without a hope of change. With you, nothing is hopeless. You are Love. You are the creator and the redeemer of all things. We praise you with this song: Alleluia!

Ikos 10

My God, you know the fall of proud Lucifer. Save me through the power of your grace; do not allow me to fall away from you, do not allow me to doubt you. Sharpen my ear, that at every minute of my life I may hear your mysterious voice; and I call upon you, who are everywhere present.

Glory to you for providential circumstances,
Glory to you for helpful forebodings,
Glory to you for the teaching of your secret voice,
Glory to you, for revelations you give us in dreams or awake,
Glory to you for scattering our vain imaginations,
Glory to you, freeing us from the fire of passions through suffering,
Glory to you, who for our salvation, brings down proudness of heart,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 11

Beyond the icy sequence of the ages, I feel the warmth of your divine Breath, I hear the throbbing of your blood. You are already near: part of time has already gone by. I see your Cross: it is there for my sake. My spirit is but dust before your Cross: here is the triumph of love and redemption, here throughout the ages unceasingly rises the praise: Alleluia!

Ikos 11

Blessed is he who will share your mystical supper in your kingdom; but even here on earth you have granted me this blessedness. How many times, with your divine hand, you offered me your Body and your Blood; while I, a great sinner, received these sacred Gifts and felt your ineffable and supernatural love.

Glory to you for the inconceivable and life-giving power of grace,
Glory to you who established your Church as a haven of peace for a tormented world,
Glory to you for giving us new birth in the life-giving waters of baptism,
Glory to you, restoring to those who repent purity white as the unstained lily,
Glory to you, unfathomable abyss of forgiveness,
Glory to you for the cup of life, for the bread of eternal joy,
Glory to you who raise us to heaven,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 12

More than once have I seen the reflection of your glory in the faces of the dead. What beauty, what heavenly joy shown in them! How light their features, now made spiritual! This was the triumph of happiness and peace found once again; in their silence they were calling on you. At the hour of my death, illumine also my soul which calls to you: Alleluia!

Ikos 12

How poor is my praise before you! I have not heard the song of the Cherubim, a joy reserved to the souls on high, but I know the praises nature sings to you. In winter, I see how in the moonlit silence the whole earth offers you prayer, wrapped in its white mantle of snow, sparking like diamonds. I see the rising sun rejoice in you, and I hear the chorus of birds raise a hymn of glory. I hear the forest mysteriously rustling in your honour, the winds sing of your, the waters murmur and the processions of stars proclaim you as they move in harmony for ever in the depths of infinite space. What is my poor worship? All nature obeys you, I do not; yet while I live, I see your love. I long to thank you, pray to you and call upon your Name.

Glory to you, who has shown us the light,
Glory to you, who loved us with a deep unfathomable and divine love,
Glory to you, who blesses us with the light, with a host of angels and saints,
Glory to you, Father most holy, revealing us your kingdom in your commandments,
Glory to you, Holy Spirit, life-giving Sun of the world to come,
Glory to you for all things, divine and most merciful Trinity,
Glory to you, O God, from age to age.

Kontakion 13

Life-giving and most merciful Trinity, receive our thanksgiving for all your kindnesses; make us worthy of your blessings, so that, when we have brought a profit from the talents you have entrusted to us, we may enter into the eternal joy of our Lord, singing the triumphal hymn: Alleluia!

Copyright: 1934

Source: SYNDESMOS Orthodoxy and Ecology Resource Book

2008-09-26T12:41:00.000-05:00

THEOSIS* - DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE

By Archimandrite George
Abbott of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregorios on Mount Athos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE
The issue of the destiny of our lives is very serious, because it concerns the most important question for man: the purpose for which we are placed on earth. If man takes a correct stance on this subject, if he finds his actual destiny, he can then take also a correct stance regarding particular questions, and those that arise in his daily life, such as his relationships with other people, his studies, profession, marriage and the bearing and upbringing of children. However, if he does not take the correct stance on this basic issue, then he will also fail in his particular goals. Because what meaning can particular goals have, if human life as a whole has no meaning?

The purpose of our life is declared already by the first chapter of the Holy Bible, when the holy author tells us that God created man ‘in His image and likeness’. We thus ascertain the great love that the Triune God has for man: He does not wish him simply to be a being with certain gifts, certain qualities, a certain superiority over the rest of creation, but He wishes him to be a god by Grace.

Externally, man seems to be just a biological being, like other living beings, the animals. Of course, he is an animal, but ‘an animal ... which can be deified through its inclination towards God’, as St. Gregory the Theologian characteristically says (Homily on the Epiphany MPG 36, 324, 13). He is the only being that stands apart from all creation; the only one which can become a god.

‘In His image’ refers to the gifts which God gave only to man, alone among all His creatures, so that he constitutes an image of God. These gifts are: a rational mind (gr. nous), conscience, and self-authority, in other words freedom, creativity, eros, and the yearning for the absolute and for God, personal self-awareness, and anything else which puts man above all other living beings in creation, and makes him a man and a personality. In other words, everything that makes man a person. These are the gifts of the ‘in His image’.

Having been formed ‘in His image’, man is called upon to be acquire the ‘in His likeness’, in other words, deification (gr. theosis). The Creator, God by nature, calls man to become a god by Grace.

The gifts of ‘in His image’ were given to man by God so that that he may ascend very high; so that through them he may attain a likeness to his God and Creator; so that he may have not an external, moral relationship, but a personal union with his Creator.

Perhaps it is very daring for us even to say or think that our purpose in life is to become gods by Grace. However, neither the Holy Bible nor the Church Fathers have hidden this from us.

Unfortunately, there exists ignorance in people outside the Church, but also in many within the Church, because they assume that the purpose of our life is, at best, simply moral improvement, to become better men, whereas this is not what is given to us by the Gospel, by the Tradition of the Church, and by the holy Fathers: that man should only improve, become more moral, more just, more self-controlled, more mindful. All these must be done, but they are not the great purpose, the final purpose for which our Maker and Creator formed man. What is this purpose? Deification (gr. theosis) – for man to be united with God, not in an external or a sentimental way, but ontologically, really.

This is how high Orthodox anthropology places humanity. If we compare the anthropologies of all the philosophies, social and psychological systems with Orthodox anthropology, we will ascertain very easily how poor these are; how they fail to respond to man’s great yearning for something very great and true in his life.

Since man is ‘called to be a god’, i.e. he was created to become a god, as long as he does not find himself on the path of deification (gr. theosis) he feels an emptiness within himself; that something is not going right; he feels no joy, even when he is trying to cover the emptiness with other activities. He may numb himself, create a fancy world, but at the same time poor, small and limited, and cage and imprison himself inside it. He may organise his life in such a way that he is never quiet, alone with himself. He can try, through noises, tension, television, radio, continuous information about this and that, as if with drugs, to forget, to not think, not worry, not remember that he is not on the right path, that he has strayed from his purpose.

In the end, however, the wretched, contemporary man finds no rest until he finds that ‘something else’, the greatest thing that actually exists in his life, the truly beautiful and creative.

Can man unite with God? Can he commune with Him? Can he become a god by Grace?

2008-05-15T19:46:00.002-05:00

For all of you Obama supporters in the Christian community, look at who thinks highly of him by following this link.
http://www.naral.org/

Now that you have seen this explain to me how you plan on reconciling what you master thought you.

I am convinced that God will appoint whomever he wishes but it doesn't mean that he will always appoint a man that fears him.

so lets chew on this together and tell me what you think.

2008-04-15T18:21:00.003-05:00

The sabbatical is over! i feel like not blogging for so long has turned my brain into mush.
The maelstrom of information that i daily acquire about various things in life, is driving me crazy. So here is the deal i can sit on my derrière and ponder these things all by myself or i can unload on you. I like the second option better.

Another thing i want to do is write in French occasionally for our francophone friends who probably feel left out by now, but no worries, you (English/Texan speaking peeps) will get more material.

2007-10-10T11:17:00.000-05:00

2007-08-09T09:14:00.001-05:00

Hear, Lord, my prayer; let not my soul faint under Thy discipline,
nor let me faint in confessing unto Thee all Thy mercies, whereby
Thou hast drawn me out of all my most evil ways, that Thou mightest
become a delight to me above all the allurements which I once pursued;
that I may most entirely love Thee, and clasp Thy hand with all my
affections, and Thou mayest yet rescue me from every temptation, even
unto the end. For lo, O Lord, my King and my God, for Thy service
be whatever useful thing my childhood learned; for Thy service, that
I speak, write, read, reckon. For Thou didst grant me Thy discipline,
while I was learning vanities; and my sin of delighting in those vanities
Thou hast forgiven. In them, indeed, I learnt many a useful word,
but these may as well be learned in things not vain; and that is the
safe path for the steps of youth.

But woe is thee, thou torrent of human custom! Who shall stand
against thee? how long shalt thou not be dried up? how long roll the
sons of Eve into that huge and hideous ocean, which even they scarcely
overpass who climb the cross? Did not I read in thee of Jove the thunderer
and the adulterer? both, doubtless, he could not be; but so the feigned
thunder might countenance and pander to real adultery. And now which
of our gowned masters lends a sober ear to one who from their own
school cries out, "These were Homer's fictions, transferring things
human to the gods; would he had brought down things divine to us!"
Yet more truly had he said, "These are indeed his fictions; but attributing
a divine nature to wicked men, that crimes might be no longer crimes,
and whoso commits them might seem to imitate not abandoned men, but
the celestial gods."

And yet, thou hellish torrent, into thee are cast the sons of
men with rich rewards, for compassing such learning; and a great solemnity
is made of it, when this is going on in the forum, within sight of
laws appointing a salary beside the scholar's payments; and thou lashest
thy rocks and roarest, "Hence words are learnt; hence eloquence; most
necessary to gain your ends, or maintain opinions." As if we should
have never known such words as "golden shower," "lap," "beguile,"
"temples of the heavens," or others in that passage, unless Terence
had brought a lewd youth upon the stage, setting up Jupiter as his
example of seduction. -
"Viewing a picture, where the tale was drawn,
Of Jove's descending in a golden shower
To Danae's lap a woman to beguile."
And then mark how he excites himself to lust as by celestial
authority: -
"And what God? Great Jove,
Who shakes heaven's highest temples with his thunder,
And I, poor mortal man, not do the same!
I did it, and with all my heart I did it."
- Not one whit more easily are the words learnt for all this vileness;
but by their means the vileness is committed with less shame. Not
that I blame the words, being, as it were, choice and precious vessels;
but that wine of error which is drunk to us in them by intoxicated
teachers; and if we, too, drink not, we are beaten, and have no sober
judge to whom we may appeal. Yet, O my God (in whose presence I now
without hurt may remember this), all this unhappily I learnt willingly
with great delight, and for this was pronounced a hopeful boy.

2007-08-03T09:24:00.001-05:00

But why did I so much hate the Greek, which I studied as a boy?
I do not yet fully know. For the Latin I loved; not what my first
masters, but what the so-called grammarians taught me. For those first
lessons, reading, writing and arithmetic, I thought as great a burden
and penalty as any Greek. And yet whence was this too, but from the
sin and vanity of this life, because I was flesh, and a breath that
passeth away and cometh not again? For those first lessons were better
certainly, because more certain; by them I obtained, and still retain,
the power of reading what I find written, and myself writing what
I will; whereas in the others, I was forced to learn the wanderings
of one Aeneas, forgetful of my own, and to weep for dead Dido, because
she killed herself for love; the while, with dry eyes, I endured my
miserable self dying among these things, far from Thee, O God my life.

2007-08-02T09:46:00.001-05:00

In boyhood itself, however (so much less dreaded for me than
youth), I loved not study, and hated to be forced to it. Yet I was
forced; and this was well done towards me, but I did not well; for,
unless forced, I had not learnt. But no one doth well against his
will, even though what he doth, be well. Yet neither did they well
who forced me, but what was well came to me from Thee, my God. For
they were regardless how I should employ what they forced me to learn,
except to satiate the insatiate desires of a wealthy beggary, and
a shameful glory. But Thou, by whom the very hairs of our head are
numbered, didst use for my good the error of all who urged me to learn;
and my own, who would not learn, Thou didst use for my punishment--
a fit penalty for one, so small a boy and so great a sinner. So by
those who did not well, Thou didst well for me; and by my own sin
Thou didst justly punish me. For Thou hast commanded, and so it is,
that every inordinate affection should be its own punishment.

2007-08-01T09:17:00.001-05:00

I beseech Thee, my God, I would fain know, if so Thou willest,
for what purpose my baptism was then deferred? was it for my good
that the rein was laid loose, as it were, upon me, for me to sin?
or was it not laid loose? If not, why does it still echo in our ears
on all sides, "Let him alone, let him do as he will, for he is not
yet baptised?" but as to bodily health, no one says, "Let him be worse
wounded, for he is not yet healed." How much better then, had I been
at once healed; and then, by my friends' and my own, my soul's recovered
health had been kept safe in Thy keeping who gavest it. Better truly.
But how many and great waves of temptation seemed to hang over me
after my boyhood! These my mother foresaw; and preferred to expose
to them the clay whence I might afterwards be moulded, than the very
cast, when made.

2007-07-31T10:13:00.001-05:00

As a boy, then, I had already heard of an eternal life, promised
us through the humility of the Lord our God stooping to our pride;
and even from the womb of my mother, who greatly hoped in Thee, I
was sealed with the mark of His cross and salted with His salt. Thou
sawest, Lord, how while yet a boy, being seized on a time with sudden
oppression of the stomach, and like near to death- Thou sawest, my
God (for Thou wert my keeper), with what eagerness and what faith
I sought, from the pious care of my mother and Thy Church, the mother
of us all, the baptism of Thy Christ, my God and Lord. Whereupon the
mother my flesh, being much troubled (since, with a heart pure in
Thy faith, she even more lovingly travailed in birth of my salvation),
would in eager haste have provided for my consecration and cleansing
by the health-giving sacraments, confessing Thee, Lord Jesus, for
the remission of sins, unless I had suddenly recovered. And so, as
if I must needs be again polluted should I live, my cleansing was
deferred, because the defilements of sin would, after that washing,
bring greater and more perilous guilt. I then already believed: and
my mother, and the whole household, except my father: yet did not
he prevail over the power of my mother's piety in me, that as he did
not yet believe, so neither should I. For it was her earnest care
that Thou my God, rather than he, shouldest be my father; and in this
Thou didst aid her to prevail over her husband, whom she, the better,
obeyed, therein also obeying Thee, who hast so commanded.

2007-07-27T09:12:00.001-05:00

And yet, I sinned herein, O Lord God, the Creator and Disposer
of all things in nature, of sin the Disposer only, O Lord my God,
I sinned in transgressing the commands of my parents and those of
my masters. For what they, with whatever motive, would have me learn,
I might afterwards have put to good use. For I disobeyed, not from
a better choice, but from love of play, loving the pride of victory
in my contests, and to have my ears tickled with lying fables, that
they might itch the more; the same curiosity flashing from my eyes
more and more, for the shows and games of my elders. Yet those who
give these shows are in such esteem, that almost all wish the same
for their children, and yet are very willing that they should be beaten,
if those very games detain them from the studies, whereby they would
have them attain to be the givers of them. Look with pity, Lord, on
these things, and deliver us who call upon Thee now; deliver those
too who call not on Thee yet, that they may call on Thee, and Thou
mayest deliver them.

2007-07-26T09:38:00.001-05:00

Is there, Lord, any of soul so great, and cleaving to Thee with
so intense affection (for a sort of stupidity will in a way do it);
but is there any one who, from cleaving devoutly to Thee, is endued
with so great a spirit, that he can think as lightly of the racks
and hooks and other torments (against which, throughout all lands,
men call on Thee with extreme dread), mocking at those by whom they
are feared most bitterly, as our parents mocked the torments which
we suffered in boyhood from our masters? For we feared not our torments
less; nor prayed we less to Thee to escape them. And yet we sinned,
in writing or reading or studying less than was exacted of us. For
we wanted not, O Lord, memory or capacity, whereof Thy will gave enough
for our age; but our sole delight was play; and for this we were punished
by those who yet themselves were doing the like. But elder folks'
idleness is called "business"; that of boys, being really the same,
is punished by those elders; and none commiserates either boys or
men. For will any of sound discretion approve of my being beaten as
a boy, because, by playing a ball, I made less progress in studies
which I was to learn, only that, as a man, I might play more unbeseemingly?
and what else did he who beat me? who, if worsted in some trifling
discussion with his fellow-tutor, was more embittered and jealous
than I when beaten at ball by a play-fellow?

2007-07-25T09:40:00.001-05:00

O God my God, what miseries and mockeries did I now experience,
when obedience to my teachers was proposed to me, as proper in a boy,
in order that in this world I might prosper, and excel in tongue-science,
which should serve to the "praise of men," and to deceitful riches.
Next I was put to school to get learning, in which I (poor wretch)
knew not what use there was; and yet, if idle in learning, I was beaten.
For this was judged right by our forefathers; and many, passing the
same course before us, framed for us weary paths, through which we
were fain to pass; multiplying toil and grief upon the sons of Adam.
But, Lord, we found that men called upon Thee, and we learnt from
them to think of Thee (according to our powers) as of some great One,
who, though hidden from our senses, couldest hear and help us. For
so I began, as a boy, to pray to Thee, my aid and refuge; and broke
the fetters of my tongue to call on Thee, praying Thee, though small,
yet with no small earnestness, that I might not be beaten at school.
And when Thou heardest me not (not thereby giving me over to folly),
my elders, yea my very parents, who yet wished me no ill, mocked my
stripes, my then great and grievous ill.

2007-07-24T09:18:00.000-05:00

Passing hence from infancy, I came to boyhood, or rather it came
to me, displacing infancy. Nor did that depart,- (for whither went
it?)- and yet it was no more. For I was no longer a speechless infant,
but a speaking boy. This I remember; and have since observed how I
learned to speak. It was not that my elders taught me words (as, soon
after, other learning) in any set method; but I, longing by cries
and broken accents and various motions of my limbs to express my thoughts,
that so I might have my will, and yet unable to express all I willed,
or to whom I willed, did myself, by the understanding which Thou,
my God, gavest me, practise the sounds in my memory. When they named
any thing, and as they spoke turned towards it, I saw and remembered
that they called what they would point out by the name they uttered.
And that they meant this thing and no other was plain from the motion
of their body, the natural language, as it were, of all nations, expressed
by the countenance, glances of the eye, gestures of the limbs, and
tones of the voice, indicating the affections of the mind, as it pursues,
possesses, rejects, or shuns. And thus by constantly hearing words,
as they occurred in various sentences, I collected gradually for what
they stood; and having broken in my mouth to these signs, I thereby
gave utterance to my will. Thus I exchanged with those about me these
current signs of our wills, and so launched deeper into the stormy
intercourse of human life, yet depending on parental authority and
the beck of elders.

2007-07-20T11:26:00.001-05:00

Thou, then, O Lord my God, who gavest life to this my infancy,
furnishing thus with senses (as we see) the frame Thou gavest, compacting
its limbs, ornamenting its proportions, and, for its general good
and safety, implanting in it all vital functions, Thou commandest
me to praise Thee in these things, to confess unto Thee, and sing
unto Thy name, Thou most Highest. For Thou art God, Almighty and Good,
even hadst Thou done nought but only this, which none could do but
Thou: whose Unity is the mould of all things; who out of Thy own fairness
makest all things fair; and orderest all things by Thy law. This age
then, Lord, whereof I have no remembrance, which I take on others'
word, and guess from other infants that I have passed, true though
the guess be, I am yet loth to count in this life of mine which I
live in this world. For no less than that which I spent in my mother's
womb, is it hid from me in the shadows of forgetfulness. But if I
was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, where,
I beseech Thee, O my God, where, Lord, or when, was I Thy servant
guiltless? But, lo! that period I pass by; and what have I now to
do with that, of which I can recall no vestige?

2007-07-19T10:06:00.000-05:00

Hear, O God. Alas, for man's sin! So saith man, and Thou pitiest
him; for Thou madest him, but sin in him Thou madest not. Who remindeth
me of the sins of my infancy? for in Thy sight none is pure from sin,
not even the infant whose life is but a day upon the earth. Who remindeth
me? doth not each little infant, in whom I see what of myself I remember
not? What then was my sin? was it that I hung upon the breast and
cried? for should I now so do for food suitable to my age, justly
should I be laughed at and reproved. What I then did was worthy reproof;
but since I could not understand reproof, custom and reason forbade
me to be reproved. For those habits, when grown, we root out and cast
away. Now no man, though he prunes, wittingly casts away what is good.
Or was it then good, even for a while, to cry for what, if given,
would hurt? bitterly to resent, that persons free, and its own elders,
yea, the very authors of its birth, served it not? that many besides,
wiser than it, obeyed not the nod of its good pleasure? to do its
best to strike and hurt, because commands were not obeyed, which had
been obeyed to its hurt? The weakness then of infant limbs, not its
will, is its innocence. Myself have seen and known even a baby envious;
it could not speak, yet it turned pale and looked bitterly on its
foster-brother. Who knows not this? Mothers and nurses tell you that
they allay these things by I know not what remedies. Is that too innocence,
when the fountain of milk is flowing in rich abundance, not to endure
one to share it, though in extremest need, and whose very life as
yet depends thereon? We bear gently with all this, not as being no
or slight evils, but because they will disappear as years increase;
for, though tolerated now, the very same tempers are utterly intolerable
when found in riper years.

2007-07-18T10:04:00.001-05:00

I acknowledge Thee, Lord of heaven and earth, and praise Thee
for my first rudiments of being, and my infancy, whereof I remember
nothing; for Thou hast appointed that man should from others guess
much as to himself; and believe much on the strength of weak females.
Even then I had being and life, and (at my infancy's close) I could
seek for signs whereby to make known to others my sensations. Whence
could such a being be, save from Thee, Lord? Shall any be his own
artificer? or can there elsewhere be derived any vein, which may stream
essence and life into us, save from thee, O Lord, in whom essence
and life are one? for Thou Thyself art supremely Essence and Life.
For Thou art most high, and art not changed, neither in Thee doth
to-day come to a close; yet in Thee doth it come to a close; because
all such things also are in Thee. For they had no way to pass away,
unless Thou upheldest them. And since Thy years fail not, Thy years
are one to-day. How many of ours and our fathers' years have flowed
away through Thy "to-day," and from it received the measure and the
mould of such being as they had; and still others shall flow away,
and so receive the mould of their degree of being. But Thou art still
the same, and all things of tomorrow, and all beyond, and all of yesterday,
and all behind it, Thou hast done to-day. What is it to me, though
any comprehend not this? Let him also rejoice and say, What thing
is this? Let him rejoice even thus! and be content rather by not discovering
to discover Thee, than by discovering not to discover Thee.

2007-07-17T12:26:00.001-05:00

And, lo! my infancy died long since, and I live. But Thou, Lord,
who for ever livest, and in whom nothing dies: for before the foundation
of the worlds, and before all that can be called "before," Thou art,
and art God and Lord of all which Thou hast created: in Thee abide,
fixed for ever, the first causes of all things unabiding; and of all
things changeable, the springs abide in Thee unchangeable: and in
Thee live the eternal reasons of all things unreasoning and temporal.
Say, Lord, to me, Thy suppliant; say, all-pitying, to me, Thy pitiable
one; say, did my infancy succeed another age of mine that died before
it? was it that which I spent within my mother's womb? for of that
I have heard somewhat, and have myself seen women with child? and
what before that life again, O God my joy, was I any where or any
body? For this have I none to tell me, neither father nor mother,
nor experience of others, nor mine own memory. Dost Thou mock me for
asking this, and bid me praise Thee and acknowledge Thee, for that
I do know?

2007-07-14T10:42:00.001-05:00

Afterwards I began to smile; first in sleep, then waking: for
so it was told me of myself, and I believed it; for we see the like
in other infants, though of myself I remember it not. Thus, little
by little, I became conscious where I was; and to have a wish to express
my wishes to those who could content them, and I could not; for the
wishes were within me, and they without; nor could they by any sense
of theirs enter within my spirit. So I flung about at random limbs
and voice, making the few signs I could, and such as I could, like,
though in truth very little like, what I wished. And when I was not
presently obeyed (my wishes being hurtful or unintelligible), then
I was indignant with my elders for not submitting to me, with those
owing me no service, for not serving me; and avenged myself on them
by tears. Such have I learnt infants to be from observing them; and
that I was myself such, they, all unconscious, have shown me better
than my nurses who knew it.

2007-07-13T11:03:00.001-05:00

Yet suffer me to speak unto Thy mercy, me, dust and ashes. Yet
suffer me to speak, since I speak to Thy mercy, and not to scornful
man. Thou too, perhaps, despisest me, yet wilt Thou return and have
compassion upon me. For what would I say, O Lord my God, but that
I know not whence I came into this dying life (shall I call it?) or
living death. Then immediately did the comforts of Thy compassion
take me up, as I heard (for I remember it not) from the parents of
my flesh, out of whose substance Thou didst sometime fashion me. Thus
there received me the comforts of woman's milk. For neither my mother
nor my nurses stored their own breasts for me; but Thou didst bestow
the food of my infancy through them, according to Thine ordinance,
whereby Thou distributest Thy riches through the hidden springs of
all things. Thou also gavest me to desire no more than Thou gavest;
and to my nurses willingly to give me what Thou gavest them. For they,
with a heaven-taught affection, willingly gave me what they abounded
with from Thee. For this my good from them, was good for them. Nor,
indeed, from them was it, but through them; for from Thee, O God,
are all good things, and from my God is all my health. This I since
learned, Thou, through these Thy gifts, within me and without, proclaiming
Thyself unto me. For then I knew but to suck; to repose in what pleased,
and cry at what offended my flesh; nothing more.

2007-07-12T10:25:00.001-05:00

Narrow is the mansion of my soul; enlarge Thou it, that Thou
mayest enter in. It is ruinous; repair Thou it. It has that within
which must offend Thine eyes; I confess and know it. But who shall
cleanse it? or to whom should I cry, save Thee? Lord, cleanse me from
my secret faults, and spare Thy servant from the power of the enemy.
I believe, and therefore do I speak. Lord, Thou knowest. Have I not
confessed against myself my transgressions unto Thee, and Thou, my
God, hast forgiven the iniquity of my heart? I contend not in judgment
with Thee, who art the truth; I fear to deceive myself; lest mine
iniquity lie unto itself. Therefore I contend not in judgment with
Thee; for if Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall
abide it?

2007-07-11T09:21:00.001-05:00

Oh! that I might repose on Thee! Oh! that Thou wouldest enter
into my heart, and inebriate it, that I may forget my ills, and embrace
Thee, my sole good! What art Thou to me? In Thy pity, teach me to
utter it. Or what am I to Thee that Thou demandest my love, and, if
I give it not, art wroth with me, and threatenest me with grievous
woes? Is it then a slight woe to love Thee not? Oh! for Thy mercies'
sake, tell me, O Lord my God, what Thou art unto me. Say unto my soul,
I am thy salvation. So speak, that I may hear. Behold, Lord, my heart
is before Thee; open Thou the ears thereof, and say unto my soul,
I am thy salvation. After this voice let me haste, and take hold on
Thee. Hide not Thy face from me. Let me die- lest I die- only let
me see Thy face.

2007-07-10T10:32:00.000-05:00

Mariolatry

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" -Exodus 20:4

“The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN...that they may provoke me to anger” -Jeremiah 7:18

You be the Judge OOOPS THE BIBLE BE THE JUDGE !
SELAH.

2007-07-10T09:55:00.001-05:00

What art Thou then, my God? what, but the Lord God? For who is
Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? Most highest, most
good, most potent, most omnipotent; most merciful, yet most just;
most hidden, yet most present; most beautiful, yet most strong, stable,
yet incomprehensible; unchangeable, yet all-changing; never new, never
old; all-renewing, and bringing age upon the proud, and they know
it not; ever working, ever at rest; still gathering, yet nothing lacking;
supporting, filling, and overspreading; creating, nourishing, and
maturing; seeking, yet having all things. Thou lovest, without passion;
art jealous, without anxiety; repentest, yet grievest not; art angry,
yet serene; changest Thy works, Thy purpose unchanged; receivest again
what Thou findest, yet didst never lose; never in need, yet rejoicing
in gains; never covetous, yet exacting usury. Thou receivest over
and above, that Thou mayest owe; and who hath aught that is not Thine?
Thou payest debts, owing nothing; remittest debts, losing nothing.
And what had I now said, my God, my life, my holy joy? or what saith
any man when he speaks of Thee? Yet woe to him that speaketh not,
since mute are even the most eloquent.

2007-07-07T07:58:00.001-05:00

Do the heaven and earth then contain Thee, since Thou fillest
them? or dost Thou fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain
Thee? And whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pourest
Thou forth the remainder of Thyself? or hast Thou no need that aught
contain Thee, who containest all things, since what Thou fillest Thou
fillest by containing it? for the vessels which Thou fillest uphold
Thee not, since, though they were broken, Thou wert not poured out.
And when Thou art poured out on us, Thou art not cast down, but Thou
upliftest us; Thou art not dissipated, but Thou gatherest us. But
Thou who fillest all things, fillest Thou them with Thy whole self?
or, since all things cannot contain Thee wholly, do they contain part
of Thee? and all at once the same part? or each its own part, the
greater more, the smaller less? And is, then one part of Thee greater,
another less? or, art Thou wholly every where, while nothing contains
Thee wholly?

2007-07-06T00:20:00.000-05:00

One Augustin a day keeps the pagans(zeitgeist) away!

And how shall I call upon my God, my God and Lord, since, when
I call for Him, I shall be calling Him to myself? and what room is
there within me, whither my God can come into me? whither can God
come into me, God who made heaven and earth? is there, indeed, O Lord
my God, aught in me that can contain Thee? do then heaven and earth,
which Thou hast made, and wherein Thou hast made me, contain Thee?
or, because nothing which exists could exist without Thee, doth therefore
whatever exists contain Thee? Since, then, I too exist, why do I seek
that Thou shouldest enter into me, who were not, wert Thou not in
me? Why? because I am not gone down in hell, and yet Thou art there
also. For if I go down into hell, Thou art there. I could not be then,
O my God, could not be at all, wert Thou not in me; or, rather, unless
I were in Thee, of whom are all things, by whom are all things, in
whom are all things? Even so, Lord, even so. Whither do I call Thee,
since I am in Thee? or whence canst Thou enter into me? for whither
can I go beyond heaven and earth, that thence my God should come into
me, who hath said, I fill the heaven and the earth.

2007-07-05T15:03:00.001-05:00

One Augustine a day keeps the pagans Away !

Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy
power, and Thy wisdom infinite. And Thee would man praise; man, but
a particle of Thy creation; man, that bears about him his mortality,
the witness of his sin, the witness that Thou resistest the proud:
yet would man praise Thee; he, but a particle of Thy creation. Thou
awakest us to delight in Thy praise; for Thou madest us for Thyself,
and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee. Grant me, Lord,
to know and understand which is first, to call on Thee or to praise
Thee? and, again, to know Thee or to call on Thee? for who can call
on Thee, not knowing Thee? for he that knoweth Thee not, may call
on Thee as other than Thou art. Or, is it rather, that we call on
Thee that we may know Thee? but how shall they call on Him in whom
they have not believed? or how shall they believe without a preacher?
and they that seek the Lord shall praise Him: for they that seek shall
find Him, and they that find shall praise Him. I will seek Thee, Lord,
by calling on Thee; and will call on Thee, believing in Thee; for
to us hast Thou been preached. My faith, Lord, shall call on Thee,
which Thou hast given me, wherewith Thou hast inspired me, through
the Incarnation of Thy Son, through the ministry of the Preacher.

2007-06-26T01:07:00.000-05:00

Why I'm Not Orthodox
An evangelical explores the ancient and alien world of the Eastern church.
by Daniel B. Clendenin | posted 1/06/1997 12:00AM

During my four years as a visiting professor at Moscow State University (1991-95) I often felt schizophrenic. There I was, a Protestant theologian teaching in the former Department of Scientific Atheism in the land where Eastern Orthodoxy had reigned for over 1,000 years. At one level, I was close in heart and mind to my Orthodox sisters and brothers in Christ; but on another level, I agreed with many of my atheist friends' criticisms of Russian Orthodoxy.

Suspicion and recrimination have often characterized relationships between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Protestantism. Protestant theologian Adolf von Harnack once described the Orthodox church as "in her entire structure alien to the Gospel and a perversion of the Christian religion, its reduction to the level of pagan antiquity." Not to be outdone, the Orthodox could respond in kind. An Orthodox priest who lectured to standing-room-only crowds at Moscow State once described Orthodox theology to me as "music made in the conservatory," whereas he described Protestant theology as "music made in the honkytonk bars. Protestant Christianity," Andrei went on, "is a cheap, terrible substitute, and an Orthodox believer who knows his own faith will never go there."

Writing a book on Eastern Orthodoxy and working through the manuscript with my Russian students helped me to compare Orthodoxy and Protestant evangelicalism. But one insightful reader asked a penetrating question: "Your book does a fine job comparing the two traditions; why have you not converted to Orthodoxy?" It is a good question, one I will answer in due course.
Why be interested?

One need not travel overseas to encounter Eastern Orthodoxy. It merits our attention for several reasons. Not a few evangelicals in the last decade have forsaken Protestantism to join an Eastern Orthodox church. The conversion of 2,000 evangelicals in 17 congregations "from Alaska to Atlanta" in 1987, recounted in Peter Gillquist's Becoming Orthodox, is only a small window into a larger phenomenon. As former Campus Crusade staff member Gillquist put it, why have so many "Bible-believing, blood-bought, Gospel-preaching, Christ-centered, lifelong evangelical Protestants come to embrace this Orthodox faith so enthusiastically?" (To be fair, we should note that a large number of Orthodox have become evangelical Protestants as well.)

Orthodoxy's size alone warrants our attention, despite its invisibility on the cultural radar screens of most Americans. Although it is difficult to gather firm figures, worldwide Orthodox Christians number about 150 million, with 3 million in the U.S. alone—more than most evangelical denominations. At a minimum, Protestants need to move beyond ignorance of these neighbors.

In some places in the world, Orthodoxy is the primary Christian game in town (as in Russia and Serbia), and it is inextricably wedded to the local ethnic culture. For good and ill, it is a classic "cultural religion," and comprehending Orthodoxy is an indispensable key to understanding those countries, cultures, and people.

Missiological concerns surface here, too. In many of these lands, Orthodoxy exhibits an unveiled distrust and even xenophobia toward the massive influx of Western missionaries into their backyards. Legislation pending in Russia, for example, could, if implemented, curtail Western missionary enterprises. Is it wrong for Western missionaries to seek to convert the Orthodox in lands like Russia, Romania, or Greece? Has Orthodoxy in these lands obscured the gospel, becoming merely a "cultural" religion thoroughly assimilated to ethnic identity?

Converts from Protestantism claim that Orthodoxy is strongest where evangelicals tend to be weak-its robust liturgical celebration of the majesty and mystery of God, its unyielding insistence on the indispensable role of tradition in theology, and its admirable heritage of perseverance amid terrible fires of persecution. Orthodoxy, advocates suggest, reveals and corrects evangelical reductionism and superficiality.

Some have argued that evangelicals eager to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3) will find an ally in Orthodoxy's allegiance to the basic truths of Christianity. That is, Orthodoxy's commitment to "right belief" provides a natural link to evangelical concerns. For instance, John of Damascus (675-749), Orthodoxy's most famous systematic theologian, epitomized the Orthodox ethos when he wrote in his The Orthodox Faith, "we do not change the everlasting boundaries which our fathers have set, but we keep the traditions just as we have received them." Liberalism is not a word in the Orthodox vocabulary.

Since the World Council of Churches' Canberra Assembly in 1991, evangelical and Orthodox believers have joined in a series of wcc-sponsored dialogues on matters challenging historic Christian faith. On another front, under the leadership of founder Bradley Nassif, the Society for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (SSEOE) holds meetings each fall at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center for the sake of the two traditions learning from one another.

Before trying to discern how evangelicals should respond to these many issues involving Eastern Orthodoxy, a brief history is in order.
On their own turf

The so-called Eastern Orthodox Church is actually not one but thirteen "autocephalous" or independent, self-governing churches. (Some within Orthodoxy say there are 15, but this is a minor, internal debate.) These thirteen churches are united in their understanding of the sacraments, discipline, doctrine, faith, government, and worship, but they administer their internal affairs separately. As independent churches, they are not bound together by any unilateral or monarchical organization, nor do they owe allegiance to a single primacy, as Roman Catholics do to the pope. Rather, each of the thirteen Orthodox churches has its own head, variously referred to as the patriarch, archbishop, or metropolitan. Here, according to Ronald Roberson's 1993 book The Eastern Christian Churches, is a list of these churches and their approximate sizes:

—Constantinople, 3.5 million
—Alexandria, 350,000
—Antioch, 750,000
—Jerusalem, 260,000
—Russia, 50-85 million
—Serbia, 8 million
—Romania, 19.8 million
—Bulgaria, 8 million
—Georgia, 3 million
—Cyprus, 450,000
—Greece, 9 million
—Poland, 1 million
—Albania, 160,000

The first four enjoy special honor due to their antiquity.

Small bodies of Orthodox believers exist in other places as "autonomous" but not "autocephalous" churches (Finland, Japan, former Czechoslovakia, etc.). In addition, sizable Orthodox "diasporate" groups exist in Europe, North and South America, and Australia, typically under the jurisdiction of one of the thirteen patriarchates mentioned above. The independent Orthodox Church in America (OCA) desires to function as a fully "autocephalous" church, although as yet the oca has not been officially recognized by most of the thirteen patriarchates.

Christians in the West variously trace their roots to Rome (Catholics), Wittenberg (Lutherans), Geneva (Calvinists), Canterbury (Anglicans), or Oxford (Wesleyans). We think the fundamental Christian schism occurred when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg church, October 31, 1517. Orthodox believers see things very differently. For them the fundamental schism occurred 500 years earlier—in the year 1054 (more about that below). Further, they identify themselves by reference to Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), the "new Rome" of Emperor Constantine, and to the first seven ecumenical councils of the church.

Through the centuries, theological, geopolitical, cultural, and linguistic factors have combined to differentiate the Orthodox ethos from Western patterns of Christianity. Early on in the life of the Christian church, the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West began to diverge. In the year 311, Emperor Constantine moved the political capital of his empire from Rome to Constantinople. The move was far more than geographic. It had ramifications for the ecclesiastical status of both cities and further exacerbated the strained relations between the two regions. Later ecumenical councils at Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451) acknowledged Constantinople as the "New Rome" and accorded it "equal privileges" and "equal rank in ecclesiastical matters" with Latin Rome. Needless to say, Rome was indignant; not until the Lateran Council of 1215 did it acknowledge the status of Constantinople. But that was too little, too late. While Rome stumbled toward destruction in 476, Constantinople enjoyed relative theological and political stability for another 1,000 years, until it was sacked by the Turks in 1453.

Linguistic factors posed other, very practical problems. By the end of the sixth century, neither group could speak the other's language. The rise of Islam after Muhammad (died 632) was likewise crucial. Constantine had once controlled the entire Mediterranean perimeter, and as a result, Christianity flourished. But Islam's conquest of this same area eventually isolated the Eastern Christians centered in Constantinople from their counterparts in the West centered in Rome.

Theological disputes combined with these geopolitical and cultural factors to divide the Christian East and West. The East allowed some priests to marry, while the West required celibacy. In the East the local parish priest could administer the sacrament of confirmation; in the West only the bishop could. When celebrating the Eucharist, Catholics mixed the wine with water, while the Orthodox did not. The West used unleavened bread, the East did not. Differences over clerical beards, the tonsure, and fasting also exacerbated the growing deterioration of East-West unity.

Two theological controversies drove the final wedge between Catholic and Orthodox Christians: papal supremacy and the so-called filioque controversy. The collapse of the Roman Empire created a power vacuum that was increasingly filled by the growing power of the Roman papacy. Orthodox Christians were more inclined to appeal to the ecumenical councils than to a single bishop to settle theological matters. They conceded a special honor to the Western papacy but insisted that the bishop of Rome was only the first among equals. The so-called Photian Schism brought this matter to a head.

In 858 Photius was appointed as Orthodoxy's new patriarch at Constantinople, replacing Ignatius, who had been exiled and later resigned his duties. Ignatius's followers, however, refused to acknowledge the transition, and eventually both Ignatius and Photius appealed to Pope Nicholas (858-67) in Rome. Nicholas reversed the decision, reinstating Ignatius and deposing Photius. For Eastern Christians, this was yet another Roman encroachment upon their autonomy. Indeed, in a letter of 865, Pope Nicholas made it clear that he intended to extend the power of the papacy "over all the earth, that is, over every church." Eastern Christians would hear nothing of it.

Photius then branded the entire Western church as heretical for inserting the phrase "and the Son" (filioque) into the Nicene Creed. Originally the creed read that the Holy Spirit proceeded "from the Father"; a later Western interpolation (why, where, and by whom are not known), ratified at the Council of Toledo (589), added filioque to indicate that the Spirit proceeded from the Father "and the Son." Orthodox Christians viewed the filioque amendment to be contrary to explicit instructions by past ecumenical councils not to change the creeds. Worse, they considered the interpolation to be theologically untrue and a threat to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Much like a divorce where numerous and complex problems fester for years and then coalesce around a single event, the defining moment for a distinctly Orthodox identity came with the Great Schism of 1054. Schisms had already occurred in the Christian church, and others would occur later, but the Great Schism was the first of such major consequence.

On June 16, 1054, Pope Leo IX's legate, Cardinal Humbert, delivered a Bull of Excommunication to the Orthodox Patriarch Michael Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom at Constantinople while the patriarch prepared to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, condemning him and his court. Without waiting for a response, Humbert exited the church and declared, "Let God look and judge." He promptly left Constantinople.

Rome accused the "Greek heretics" of trying to "humiliate and crush the holy catholic and apostolic church." Cerularius condemned Humbert and entreated Orthodox believers to "flee the fellowship of those who have accepted the heretical Latins." As if this were not quite enough, during the Fourth Crusade, Western forces stormed Constantinople in 1204 and ransacked the Church of the Holy Wisdom, an unimaginable act of desecration from the viewpoint of Orthodoxy. Any vestiges of hope for unity after the estrangement of 1054 were dashed with the pillage of 1204. Despite efforts at reunification, to this day the Catholic and Orthodox churches remain estranged.
The splendor of worship

Most Protestants would experience an Orthodox liturgy as something strange, even exotic. I will always remember my first visit to an Orthodox church in Russia. Even before entering the church one is taken aback by the unusual architecture-the glittering gold onion domes that sparkle like diamonds on a sunny day. Once inside, a Western Christian experiences sensory overload: the near absence of chairs or pews, dim lighting, head coverings for most women, icons and frescoes covering almost every inch of space on the walls and ceiling, a massive and ornate iconostasis separating the priest and the worshipers, the smoky smell of incense and hundreds of candles burning in memory of the dead, the priest resplendent in his ornate vestments and enormous beard, and worshipers repeatedly prostrating themselves, kissing the icons, and making the sign of the cross.

Indeed, what Protestant converts to Orthodoxy have often sought is not only a conscious continuity with the historic, apostolic past, but also a richer experience of God's majesty and mystery through a more liturgical worship setting. These are worthy pursuits that can be fulfilled in the Orthodox Church. But about this pursuit we can make several observations.

Liturgically, the Orthodox ethos of a formal worship setting will attract some Christians, but to many other vibrant movements within evangelicalism it will have little if any appeal. One thinks, for example, of those committed to full ministerial status for women, the centrality of lay ministry and spiritual gifts, charismatically inclined groups, seeker-sensitive churches attempting to reach baby boomers or Generation X'ers with novel worship formats, and so on. Evangelicals focused on social ethics may also find little comradeship in Orthodoxy, as there is nothing in Orthodoxy comparable to the body of Catholic social teaching, for instance. These Protestant movements, important in their own right, are liturgical light years from Orthodoxy.

Further, rote liturgy can stultify as well as edify, which is one reason why many people prefer more informal or personal worship settings. What are we to make, for example, of the Orthodox liturgy in Russia today, which is recited in ninth-century Slavonic, a language very few Russians even understand? Further, Protestants have long enjoyed rich liturgical traditions of their own (see, for example, Bard Thompson's classic Liturgies of the Western Church). If a richer liturgical life is what a believer wants, converting to Orthodoxy is hardly necessary.

Similarly, Protestants like Thomas Oden, Donald Bloesch, and others have shown that one need not join Orthodoxy to immerse oneself in the patristic past with joy, gratitude, and a sense of accountability to that "great cloud of witnesses" of the last two millennia. Oden, for example, who delights in referring to his theological method as "paleo-orthodox," is now working on a comprehensive patristic commentary on the whole Bible to be published by InterVarsity Press. Thumb through Calvin's Institutes or a volume of John Wesley's Works and you will see our Protestant forebears thoroughly engaged with patristic tradition. As with liturgy, conversion to Orthodoxy is hardly a prerequisite for a renewed engagement with apostolic tradition.
Orthodoxy versus the Orthodox

Beyond the recovery of history and liturgy, there are deeper and more important questions. By joining Orthodoxy one inherits a theological package that includes central elements that have traditionally troubled many Protestant evangelicals and omits doctrines many evangelicals consider nonnegotiable essentials of vital Christianity. Upon joining the Orthodox Church, converts vow to "accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother." In fact, what Orthodox converts "vow to accept" diverges significantly from important, basic tenets of evangelical Protestantism. Four important areas deserve ongoing dialogue.

The church. To be Eastern Orthodox is, above all, to stake a bold and unapologetic theological claim as the one true church of Christ on earth, which alone has guarded right belief and true worship in absolute identity and unbroken succession with the apostolic church. It is precisely this exclusivistic assertion that some Protestant converts, in search of the "true, New Testament Church" have found so beguiling. Inherent in this claim, of course, is the charge that both Catholics and Protestants have lapsed from the true faith into error, if not outright heresy.

One can find people who interpret this ecclesiological exclusivity more leniently; in fact, some would argue that the best Orthodox scholars—George Florovsky and John Meyendorff, to name two—would allow for such leniency. But the claim to be Christ's one, true church remains the clear Orthodox position. This should trouble evangelicals (as well as other Protestants), especially when it is combined with the Orthodox idea of who constitutes the church and how one enters the church.

Is the church made up of those who have been "regenerated" by infant baptism in an Orthodox church institution, or by those who have experienced new birth and been justified by grace through faith? True, Luther and some other Protestants have not viewed baptismal regeneration and justification by faith as mutually exclusive. But whether a non-Orthodox person can even be saved is an open question in Orthodox ecclesiology. Over coffee one day I asked an Orthodox priest whether I, as a Protestant theologian, might be considered a true Christian. His response: "I don't know."

While this exclusivism is not unique to Orthodoxy, with this self-understanding it is easy to see why the Orthodox Church in countries such as Russia is extremely unhappy about Western, Protestant missionary incursions. At the 1996 meeting of sseoe, Orthodox representative Stanley Harakas said that the Orthodox, who have lived for 70 years in Russia under Communist oppression, are in a state of weakness, unable to rebuild churches and barely able to educate their parishioners. And while they are just beginning to recover, he says, Protestants invade, with all their Western resources, and attempt to draw away the very people the Russian Orthodox Church is attempting to nurture in the faith. Why should we welcome that? Harakas asked.

We should expect nothing less of ourselves than total respect for and even love of the history, theology, and culture of Orthodoxy; still, two things ought to be said about Orthodox complaints about Protestant proselytizing.

Take Russia as an example: First, the majority of Russians are non-Christian and unevangelized. In Russia, the largest figure usually cited for the Orthodox Church is 85 million people (some estimates are as low as 50 million), which means 100 million Russians—more than half the country—are not affiliated with Orthodoxy. Surely there is enough evangelistic work for everyone. Sizable groups of the Russian population are disenchanted with Orthodoxy for a number of reasons. Russian Baptists, Adventists, and Pentecostals feel persecuted. Intellectuals, like one of my students at Moscow University, often disdain Orthodoxy as a "medieval mentality." Others charge complicity with the state, both past and present.

Second, whatever failings Western missionaries might bring to their work, and whether Orthodoxy likes to admit it, many Russians are responding very positively to a clear, contemporary presentation of the gospel by Protestant missionaries.

The sacraments. Despite its historical estrangement from Rome, from a Protestant theological perspective Orthodoxy is similar to Catholicism at several points. Most notable are its beliefs about baptism and the Eucharist. The theological objections evangelicals have traditionally had with Rome on these two points rightly apply to Orthodoxy.

Orthodox spiritual life gives central prominence to the sacraments. These sacraments are not mere signs, symbols, or reminders. They are the efficacious means by which God transmits his salvific and sanctifying grace to us. Orthodoxy generally affirms the same seven sacraments as Catholicism: baptism, chrismation or confirmation, the Eucharist, repentance or confession, holy orders or ordination, marriage, and holy unction or anointing of the sick. Preeminent among the sacraments are baptism and the Eucharist.

Baptism is the primary and fundamental basis of the entire Orthodox Christian life. In the words of contemporary Orthodox theologian Thomas Hopko, "everything in the church flows out of the waters of baptism: the remission of sins and life eternal." Administered to infants who are fully immersed three times, baptism effects the "bath of regeneration" by which a person is born again, wholly cleansed from both original and actual sins, and, consequently, saved from guilt and punishment. In chrismation, performed immediately after rising from the baptismal waters, the priest anoints the infant with a special ointment, making the sign of the cross on various parts of the body, thus acknowledging the gift and seal of the Holy Spirit.

Orthodoxy affirms the real, physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (as do Catholics, Lutherans, and many Anglicans), yet unlike Catholicism it is content not to explain how this happens. It makes no appeal to a doctrine of transubstantiation and instead simply affirms the mystery. The Eucharist, according to the Divine Liturgy of Saint Chrysostom (the normal liturgy for Sundays and weekdays), is "for the purification of the soul, for the remission of sins, for the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, [and] for the Kingdom of Heaven."

The Eucharist is a true, propitiatory sacrifice. Different Orthodox theories exist as to what, exactly, this means. Chrysostom's liturgy says of the Eucharistic sacrifice: "Your own, from your own, we offer you, in all and for all." Christ is thus "the Offerer and the Offered, the Acceptor and the Distributed," all in such a way that nothing is added to his once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. Like baptism, the Eucharist is administered to infants.

While Protestant evangelicals have never agreed on the precise meaning or mode of the sacraments, they have historically emphasized two related truths that diverge from the Orthodox understanding of the sacraments. Evangelicals urge the necessity of personal conversion through the faith and repentance of the individual believer, as opposed to the Orthodox idea of regeneration by the sacraments.

Also, while evangelicals wholeheartedly embrace the full-orbed New Testament descriptions of the work of Christ (reconciliation, ransom, redemption, forgiveness, adoption, etc.), since the Reformation, justification by faith and substitutionary atonement have enjoyed pride of place in our understanding of the doctrines of sin and salvation. Luther urged that Christianity would stand or fall with this doctrine; Calvin called it "the hinge upon which all true religion turns."

In the history and theology of Orthodoxy it is startling to observe the nearly complete absence of any mention of the doctrine of justification by faith. Rather, "theosis" (literally, "deification"), or the progressive transformation of people into full likeness to God, in soul and body, takes center stage. (2 Pet. 1:4). Further, the Orthodox reject the idea of inherited guilt; we are guilty only for our own sins rather than for the inborn consequences of Adam's fall. Conversely, evangelicals argue that this forensic framework for sin and salvation is not merely a historical and unduly negative carryover from Augustine and Anselm, but rather is the clear teaching of Paul in his Letters to the Romans and Galatians.

Icons. In 1523-24 the Reformers Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther donned the gown of the university scholar. This simple change of dress symbolized a radical shift that has characterized the Protestant West ever since: that the knowledge of God is mediated primarily through the written Word. The Puritan John Foxe, for example, insisted that "God conducted the Reformation by printing, writing, and reading." Before long, in Reformation churches the sermon had replaced the Eucharist as the defining moment of the liturgy.

Orthodoxy, in contrast, is a thoroughly aesthetic tradition, as attested by the central role played by icons. Orthodox churches are full of them. Worshipers prostrate themselves before them and kiss them. The priest censes them and elevates them in processions. Whereas Western Protestants want to hear the written Word spoken in the sermon, Orthodox believers want to see it in the visual images of icons—as well as hear it in the spoken word.

Icons are absolutely central to Orthodoxy, distinguishing it from both Catholicism and Protestantism. In the Orthodox calendar, the first Sunday of Lent celebrates the Triumph of Orthodoxy, a commemoration of the final triumph of icons in the long and bitter battle with the iconoclasts (literally, "image-smashers") on March 11, 843. Included in this liturgy is an anathema on all those who reject icons.

This is no archaic, dusty doctrine, either. Recently I worshiped at an Orthodox church in Palo Alto on this celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. In his homily, Father Vladimir explained the history and theology of icons, adding that the heresy of iconoclasm was alive and well: "Just look around us at all the Protestants."

Icons are not merely sacred art. Rather, they are a source of revelation. According to the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 787, icons are of equal benefit as Scripture in presenting the gospel message. What Scripture proclaims by word, the icon proclaims by color. Thus, when an Orthodox believer once asked why his church did not do more doctrinal teaching, his priest responded, "Icons teach us all that we need to know." Icons are, quite literally, a "theology in color."

While evangelicals might be eager to argue there is no biblical warrant for icons, for the Orthodox it is enough that icons have always been a part of church tradition. The final declaration of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea (787) that ratified the use of icons appealed to the "written and unwritten" tradition of the early church. And for Orthodoxy, this argument from holy tradition is of great significance.

Scripture and tradition. The late Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff once remarked that the ultimate conflict between the Orthodox East and the Latin West, both Catholic and Protestant, resided in two different ideas about tradition. From the Orthodox perspective, both Catholics and Protestants seek to ground theological authority in an external norm. In Catholicism this external dogmatic authority resides in the teaching magisterium of the church as expressed in the primacy and infallibility of the papacy. In Protestantism there arose the doctrine of sola scriptura.

In contrast, Orthodoxy offers a view of theological authority that is internal and pneumatic rather than external and dogmatic. The Spirit of God himself, realizing the sacramental presence of Christ in the church, speaks to us in tradition. Thus Georges Florovsky once referred to tradition as "the witness of the Spirit."

Orthodoxy has always affirmed that Peter was the "first among equals" (primus inter pares) ; but unlike Roman Catholics, the Orthodox have always denied that he held any "primacy of power" (primatus potestatis). Rather, for Orthodoxy the whole people of God is the protector of apostolic tradition. In an encyclical letter of 1848, the Eastern patriarchs stated this most emphatically: "Infallibility resides solely in the ecumenicity of the church bound together by mutual love. … The unchangeableness of dogma as well as the purity of rite [are] entrusted to the care not of one hierarchy but of all the people of the church." This hardly signifies any sort of congregational or ecclesiological democracy, however, for while all believers possess the truth, it is the special duty of church authorities to teach it.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not alike in their views on the nature of theological authority; it is nevertheless correct to say that Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, views Protestantism in a similar negative manner. Two points that have been hallmarks of evangelical identity deserve special scrutiny: the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and the relationship between Scripture and the church.

When Martin Luther burned the books of Catholic canon law at Wittenberg's Elster Gate on December 10, 1520, he symbolized an important Protestant distinctive. Whatever honor Protestants bestow upon tradition, they deny that its authority is coequal with Scripture. Thus Luther once wrote, "What else do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the divine Scripture and human teaching or custom?" Calvin objected to the "tyranny of human tradition which is haughtily thrust upon us under the title of the Church." The Reformers did not reject tradition as a help to wisdom, as a reading of Calvin, Luther, or Wesley easily shows. What they objected to was the elevation of tradition to the status of Scripture.

One can find Orthodox statements that ascribe a unique authority to Scripture over tradition, but these are few and far between, and they speak of tradition in a narrower than usual sense. Put more starkly, Orthodoxy explicitly rejects the historic Protestant idea of sola scriptura. John Meyendorff writes that "the Christian faith can in no way be compatible with the notion of sola scriptura." Rather, Orthodoxy affirms a single source of revelation, holy tradition, of which Scripture is the preeminent among several forms. The other forms of tradition include the first seven ecumenical councils, which are acknowledged as normative and, by some, even infallible; patristic writings, especially those of the first four centuries; later councils; the Liturgy; canon law; and icons.

Karmiris writes, "Scripture and Tradition are equally valid, possess equal dogmatic authority, and are equal in value as sources of dogmatic truth . …This conception lessens the validity and value of the Holy Scriptures as the primary source of Christian dogma." Thus, while the Protestant principle of sola scriptura places Scripture above tradition, for Orthodoxy the two are complementary means of one organic whole through which the Spirit of God speaks.

Second, in biblical interpretation the Reformers placed the Scriptures above the church. They insisted that the Bible interprets itself, and through the Holy Spirit, God instructs its readers in a direct and individual manner rather than binding their consciences to the supposedly reliable teaching of the church. It is precisely this view that elevates Scripture above the church and actually encourages private interpretation that the Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky once called "the sin of the Reformation."

Instead, Orthodoxy believes that the church stands above the Scriptures, which is why, as noted, Orthodox believers agree to "accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation that was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother." In this Orthodox view, Scripture stands within rather than above the church, and to distinguish its authority from that of the church is a mistake of method.
Why not join?

There are many basic beliefs that Orthodoxy and evangelicalism hold in common: the inspiration of Scripture; the two natures of Christ, the finality and uniqueness of Christ's death on the cross, the resurrection, and our future hope of eternal life. It is no small thing for us to hold in common all the early, Christian creeds.

Moreover, evangelicals have some important lessons to learn from Orthodoxy. For example, it is understandable that evangelicals feel that the Orthodox doctrine of the church is too "high." But perhaps our theology of the church is too "low," much lower than our Protestant forebears would have it. In the opening pages of Book IV of Calvin's Institutes, for example, Calvin refers twice to the famous words of Cyprian (d. 258)—so Catholic-sounding to our ears—that "you cannot have God as your Father without the Church as your Mother" (IV.1.1, 4).

Or again, it is one thing to guard the doctrine of sola scriptura, but quite another to ignore or disdain two thousand years of tradition; surely there is a dangerous arrogance in imagining that we do not need to listen to the wealth of biblical wisdom from the patristic writers.

Put another way, we must invoke the spirit of irenic disagreement in the formula: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." The genius of this principle is that it allows us to disagree with other believers, even vehemently so, yet in an edifying fashion with a degree of theological modesty and a perspective that seeks a deeper consensus within the bounds of true faith.

But this really begs another question: "Essential" for what? Do we mean essential for salvation? For church membership? For employment at a seminary? For taking Communion together? Essential for clergy to pray together, to talk, and to encourage one another in Christ? When we realize that every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle or a matter of conscience, then we are freed to engage fully people with whom we actually have profound differences without compromising our own theological commitments.

Yet, at times there are questions of conscience and matters of principle. Theologically, just what is at stake in the differences between Protestant and Orthodox theology? In fact, much of what is basic to Christianity: the nature, sources, and interpretation of God's revelation to us, the meaning of the church and its sacraments, the doctrines of sin and salvation, and even how one enters the kingdom of God. On these points evangelical and Orthodox thinking diverge in significant ways.

To my friend who asked why I had not converted to Orthodoxy, the answer was surprisingly easy. I responded by writing back: "Because I am committed to key distinctives of the Protestant evangelical tradition."

Daniel B. Clendenin is a graduate staff member for InterVarsity at Stanford University and author of Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective and Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (both published by Baker).

Copyright © 1997 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

2007-06-21T09:21:00.001-05:00

2007-04-25T14:46:00.000-05:00

And you call this a religion of Peace
Direct quotes from the Quran:

ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Koran 9:29-30)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)

And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM (8:71)

FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. (9:73)

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:123)

I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER; AND WHOEVER ACTS ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER - THEN SURELY ALLAH IS SEVERE IN REQUITING (EVIL). THIS - TASTE IT, AND (KNOW) THAT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS IS THE PUNISHMENT OF FIRE. O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day - unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company - then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be. So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy) but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; (8:12-17)

And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors. Is it then the judgment of the times of ignorance that they desire: and who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure? O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)

The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power (5:33-34)

Believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one god: far be it from his glory that He should have a son. (4:171)

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. THEY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD DISBELIEVE AS THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED, SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALL ALIKE; THEREFORE TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM FRIENDS UNTIL THEY FLY THEIR HOMES IN ALLAH'S WAY; BUT IF THEY TURN BACK, THEN SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM A FRIEND OR A HELPER. (4:89)

As for those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the punishment (4:56)

Surely they who disbelieve in the communications of Allah - they shall have a severe punishment; and Allah is Mighty, the lord of retribution. (3:4)

Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)" (Hadith 4:52:196)

Allah's Apostles said, "When a slave (of Allah) commits illegal sexual intercourse, he is not a believer at the time of committing it; and if he steals, he is not a believer at the time of stealing; and if he drinks an alcoholic drink, when he is not a believer at the time of drinking it; and he is not a believer when he commits a murder," 'Ikrima said: I asked Ibn Abbas, "How is faith taken away from him?" He said, Like this," by clasping his hands and then separating them, and added, "But if he repents, faith returns to him like this, by clasping his hands again. (Hadith 8:82:800e:) [So, with the clap of a hand, they can do whatever they want?]

The Prophet said, "The one who commits an illegal sexual intercourse is not a believer at the time of committing illegal sexual intercourse and a thief is not a believer at the time of committing theft and a drinker of alcoholic drink is not a believer at the time of drinking. Yet, (the gate of) repentance is open thereafter." (Hadith 8:82:801)

(Isolated incident) ...then prostrated himself, and all who were with him prostrated too. But an old man took a handful of dust and touched his forehead with it saying, "This is sufficient for me." Later on I saw him killed as an infidel. (Hadith 5:59:311)

[yes the Jews and Muslims are both descendents of Abraham, but here is the attitude towards descendants of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews]: "If they find you, they will be your enemies, and will stretch forth towards you their hands and their tongues with evil, and they ardently desire that you may disbelieve. Your relationship would not profit you, nor your children, on the day of resurrection; He will decide between you; and Allah sees what you do. Indeed, there is for you a good example in Abraham and those with him when they said to their people: Surely we are clear of you and of what you serve besides Allah; WE DECLARE OURSELVES TO BE CLEAR OF YOU, AND ENMITY AND HATRED HAVE APPEARED BETWEEN US AND YOU FOREVER UNTIL YOU BELIEVE IN ALLAH ALONE (60:2-4)

Contrast that with what Jesus said:

"But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. Be merciful as your Father is merciful. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Jesus, SON of God

Apostasy

2: 27 Those who break Allah's Covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder what Allah Has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth: These cause loss (only) to themselves.

2:39, “But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.”

3:90-91 "Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief - never will their repentance be accepted [because they repent only by their tongues and not from their hearts]. And they are those who are astray. Verily, those who disbelieved, and died while they were disbelievers, the (whole) earth full of gold will not be accepted from anyone of them even if they offered it as a ransom. For them is a painful torment and they will have no helpers."

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,”

9:66, Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin

9:74, They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.

47:25,26 Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them, the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes.

Unbelievers

2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them

2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression

2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah

4:48 “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.”

4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.

4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers

5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

8:15-16, O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself

8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers

9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

9:3, And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

9:23, O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

9:28, O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an

9:123, O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

22:9, (Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of Allah: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).

22:19-22; These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), “Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!”

25:52, So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.

25:68 ”Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. “(But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,-

37:22-23, “Bring ye up”, it shall be said, “The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped- Besides Allah, and lead them to the Way to the (Fierce) Fire!

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.

48:13 And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!

48:29, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.

69:30-37 (The stern command will say): “Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin.”

Freedom of religion.

3:85, If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

8:39, And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.

Women

2:223 Your women are a tilt for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilt as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)

2:228, And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them

2:230, So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), He cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and He has divorced her

2:282, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.

4:3, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

4:11-12, Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:

4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.

4:34, Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

53:27, Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.

66:10, Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before Allah on their account, but were told: “Enter ye the Fire along with (others) that enter!”

2007-04-12T11:36:00.000-05:00

Intro To Islam

Warning Against Antichrists

1 John 2: 18-27

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Mohammed

Sources on Muhammad’s life concur that he was born ca. 570 AD in the city of Mecca in Arabia, was orphaned at a young age, was brought up by his uncle, worked mostly as a merchant, and was married by age 26. At some point, discontented with life in Mecca, he would retreat to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic tradition, it was here at age 40, in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event, Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is man's religion (dīn),[7] and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

He gained few followers early on, and was largely met with hostility from the tribes of Mecca. To escape persecution, Muhammad and his followers migrated to Yathrib (Medina) in the year 622. This historic event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. In Medina, Muhammad managed to unite the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca. In 632 AD, on returning to Medina from his 'Farewell pilgrimage', Muhammad fell ill and died at age 62, by which time most of Arabia had converted to Islam.
The revelations (or Ayats, lit. 'Signs of God'), which Muhammad had continued receiving till his death, form the verses of the Qur'an,[12] regarded by Muslims as the “word of God”, around which the religion is based. Besides the Qur'an, Muhammad’s life (sira) and traditions (hadith) are also upheld by Muslims, who consider him to be the “Perfect Man”, whose example (sunnah) is to be followed in all aspects of life.
The Five Pillars of Islam

The Five Pillars of Islam

The Five Pillars of Islam are core beliefs that shape Muslim thought, deed, and society. A Muslim who fulfills the Five Pillars of Islam, remains in the faith of Islam, and sincerely repents of his sins, will make it to Jannah (paradise). If he performs the Five Pillars but does not remain in the faith, he will not be saved.
1. Shahada
1. The Shahada is the Islamic proclamation that "There is no true God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."
2. This is the confession that Allah is the one and only true God, that Allah alone is worthy of worship, that Allah alone is the sovereign lord who does what he wills with whoever he wills. It means that all his rules and laws found in the Koran are to be followed. It means that the Christian doctrine of God as a Trinity is false as are all other belief systems including pantheism.
3. Muhammad is the true and greatest prophet of Allah and recognition of Muhammad as the Prophet of God is required. It was through Muhammad that Allah conveyed the last and final revelation.
2. Prayer (Salat)
1. Prayer involves confession of sins which begins with the purification of the body and ends with the purification of the soul. Prayer is performed five times a day. The first prayer is at dawn and the last at sunset.
2. The names of the prayers are Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, Isha. The Maghrib prayer is the sunset prayer. Isha is the prayer that is said after sunset. There is also a prayer that is said right after Fajr known as Shurooq.
3. Fasting (Saum)
1. The month of Ramadan is the month of fasting in Islam. It is an act of worship where the faithful follower denies his own needs and seeks Allah. Usually, this fasting entails no drinking, eating during, or sexual relations during the daylight hours for the entire month of Ramadan.
4. Alms-giving or charity (Zakat)
1. Charity given to the poor. It benefits the poor and it helps the giver by moving him towards more holiness and submission to Allah. Alms-giving is considered a form of worship to God.
5. Pilgrimage (Hajj)
1. This is the pilgrimage to Mecca. All Muslims, if they are able, are to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. It involves financial sacrifice and is an act of worship. Muslims must make the pilgrimage the first half of the last month of the lunar year

2007-03-28T10:03:00.001-05:00

False gods of the Old Testament .

1 Kings 16:31
And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him.

17And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?

18And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim.

19Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel's table.

1 Kings 18:20-40

20So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto mount Carmel.

21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

22Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

23Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:

24And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

25And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.

26And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.

27And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

28And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

29And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

30And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down.

31And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:

32And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.

33And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.

34And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.

35And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.

36And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.

37Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

BAALISM IN ANCIENT AN MODERN TIIMES

So what was Baalism? In essence it was the ascription of power to Nature: The universe has within itself the force of life. The world as we know it is the result of the union of the ultimate male and female principles of the universe, which may be called Baal and Ashteroth (or Astartes). (A similar goddess is Asherah, mistranslated as groves in the King James Version. The difference between the two goddesses is technical, and both were expressions of the same religious principle.) Canaanite philosophers believed, of course, that these ultimate forces were impersonal, and that their union was not sexual; but the common people preferred to think of the matter mythically. The sun god copulated with the origin mud of the world, and the animals and man resulted. How does such a myth differ from a more sophisticated expression of the same principle, such as can be found in any 20th century high school science textbook? Once, we are told, there was a vast primordial sea. Then one day, sparked by sunlight, an organic molecule appeared, which evolved to become our present world. A male principle, sunlight, inseminates a female principle, the primordial sea, and life is born.

The Baal-Asteroth religion understandably was intimately concerned with fertility. The Creator God of the Bible had promised fertility to Israel if they were faithful to Him (Dt. 7:13‑14), but what He demanded was moral loyalty, including especially sexual chastity (monogamy). The religion of Baal, however, advocated exactly the opposite method of getting fertility. Chaotic sexual orgies would stimulate Nature (human, animal, and crop fertility). The true religion of Israel said that fertility was obtained by submitting to the Creator, while Baalism said that fertility was obtained by stimulating Nature. Thus, in true religion, man is the servant/slave of God, in submission to Him; while in Baalism, man is the lord of his god (Nature) who needs to be stimulated by him.
THE NATURALISTIC FACE OF HUMANISM Robert L. Waggoner[1]

Romans 1: 18-32

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2007-03-05T09:46:00.000-06:00

Introduction to Cults and False Doctrine

Cult:

- "Cult" is the past pass of "colere", which means "to cultivate, dwell, worship"; anything to do with worship or ritual.

The Dictionary gives us several definitions:

1.
1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

- A "religious cult", is a sect with religious "rituals"... if there are no "rituals" of worship, it is a "sect", not a "cult"
- Like the Sect, "a Cult" was not founded by God, but by a person, with a known date and place.
- The "leader" often claims divinity or superhuman powers, like Moon... "brainwashing", or "mind control", may be used, and the word "exclusive" is an important hook: The only ones who know the truth, the only ones who will be saved!, and everyone outside the cult is inspired by Satan... - For "recruitment", they use false promises of joy, riches, love-bombing... to register as legitimate student organizations.. to work against drugs, or crime... to save the world...
- In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. (courtesy of http://biblia.com/christianity2/religion.htm#Cult)

The warning:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
Jesus. Matt. 7:15

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
wolves"
Paul. Acts of the apostles 20:29

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
2 Timothy 3:5

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
Romans 16:17

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."
Ephesians 5:6,

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
Colossians 2:8

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
2nd Peter 2:1

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
1st John 4:1

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:8, 9

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. "
2 Corinthians 11:3-4

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate."
Revelation 2:15

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel"
Galatians 1:6

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"
Ephesians 4:13-14

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devil
1 Timothy 4

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Touch not; taste not; handle not Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Colossians 2:20-22

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1 Timothy 1:3

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Timothy 1:10

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1 Timothy 4:6

Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
1 Timothy 4:13

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
1 Timothy 4:16

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
1 Timothy 6:3-5

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
2 Timothy 4:2

Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Titus 1:9

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
Titus 2:1

In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
Titus 2:7

Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

Hebrews 13:9

2007-02-09T10:39:00.000-06:00

The weirdest thing
Some of you know about mine and my wife's passion for all things Japanese, well i went on to search for historical evidence of the ties of both empires and found this Photograph circa 1939. It' a picture of Ethiopian Noblemen in Japan, the Japanese lady is actually wearing an Ethiopian dress.
I thought it was cool.

2007-02-08T11:35:00.001-06:00

PHILEMON
Vulgate (Latin): Philemon Chapter 1

1 Paulus vinctus Christi Jesu, et Timotheus frater, Philemoni dilecto, et adjutori nostro,

2 et Appiæ sorori carissimæ, et Archippo commilitoni nostro, et ecclesiæ, quæ in domo tua est.

3 Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu Christo.

4 Gratias ago Deo meo, semper memoriam tui faciens in orationibus meis,

5 audiens caritatem tuam, et fidem, quam habes in Domino Jesu, et in omnes sanctos:

6 ut communicatio fidei tuæ evidens fiat in agnitione omnis operis boni, quod est in vobis in Christo Jesu.

7 Gaudium enim magnum habui, et consolationem in caritate tua: quia viscera sanctorum requieverunt per te, frater.

8 Propter quod multam fiduciam habens in Christo Jesu imperandi tibi quod ad rem pertinet:

9 propter caritatem magis obsecro, cum sis talis, ut Paulus senex, nunc autem et vinctus Jesu Christi:

10 obsecro te pro meo filio, quem genui in vinculis, Onesimo,

11 qui tibi aliquando inutilis fuit, nunc autem et mihi et tibi utilis,

12 quem remisi tibi. Tu autem illum, ut mea viscera, suscipe:

13 quem ego volueram mecum detinere, ut pro te mihi ministraret in vinculis Evangelii:

14 sine consilio autem tuo nihil volui facere, uti ne velut ex necessitate bonum tuum esset, sed voluntarium.

15 Forsitan enim ideo discessit ad horam a te, ut æternum illum reciperes:

16 jam non ut servum, sed pro servo carissimum fratrem, maxime mihi: quanto autem magis tibi et in carne, et in Domino?

17 Si ergo habes me socium, suscipe illum sicut me:

18 si autem aliquid nocuit tibi, aut debet, hoc mihi imputa.

19 Ego Paulus scripsi mea manu: ego reddam, ut non dicam tibi, quod et teipsum mihi debes:

20 ita, frater. Ego te fruar in Domino: refice viscera mea in Domino.

21 Confidens in obedientia tua scripsi tibi: sciens quoniam et super id, quod dico, facies.

22 Simul autem et para mihi hospitium: nam spero per orationes vestras donari me vobis.

23 Salutat te Epaphras concaptivus meus in Christo Jesu,

24 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, et Lucas, adjutores mei.

King James Version: Philemon Chapter 1

1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,

2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,

5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;

6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

8 Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,

9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.

10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:

14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.

15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;

16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.

18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;

19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

21 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.

22 But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.

23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;

24 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.

25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

25 Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi cum spiritu vestro. Amen.

2007-02-08T11:10:00.000-06:00

There is no shame in my actions! i changed the color once again. I couldnt deal with the pink anymore.

2007-02-06T10:27:00.000-06:00

This not an attempt to have a fabulous Page but to keep the liturgical colors alive as best a man can. Our color this season is purple, although i know i'll catch flack from the ladies, especially my wife, whom i love so much, will tell me that it is some other kind of "magenta"or pink, But i am not an expert in color neither will i pretend to be. This post is about lent or the fact that i am anxiously awaiting the Lenten, with self-examination, study, fasting, and prayer.
Lent is the great sackcloth and ashes session of the year. It is the "turning around" or reorientation of our lives towards God. Both as individuals and as a community, we look inward and reflect on our readiness to follow Jesus in his journey towards the cross. The forty days of Lent correspond to the forty-day temptation of Jesus in the wilderness and the forty-year journey of Israel from slavery to a new community.

2007-01-24T09:43:00.000-06:00

The Collect for the Day

SAINT TIMOTHY
Bishop of Ephesus and Martyr

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, who didst call Saint Timothy to endure hardship, as a good soldier of thy Son: Strengthen us in like manner to stand firm in adversity, that we may obtain salvation with eternal glory; through the grace of Christ Jesus our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

2007-01-17T10:06:00.000-06:00

Epiphany
Epiphany is the climax of the Christmas Season and the Twelve Days of Christmas
The wonderful picture of humility The Lord chose to give us, yet the Revelation of
THE GOD Himself. The new testament meeting place of the Trinity in human history.

2007-01-14T00:05:00.000-06:00

Gloria in excélsis Deo
Et in terra pax homínibus bonae voluntátis.
Laudámus te.
Benedícimus te.
Adorámus te.
Glorificámus te.
Grátias ágimus tibi propter magnam glóriam tuam,
Dómine Deus, Rex cæléstis, Deus Pater omnípotens.
Dómine Fili unigénite, Jesu Christe.
Dómine Deus, Agnus Dei, Fílius Patris.
Qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis.
Qui tollis peccáta mundi, súscipe deprecatiónem nostram.
Qui sedes ad déxteram Patris, miserére nobis.
Quóniam tu solus Sanctus.
Tu solus Dóminus,
Tu solus Altíssimus, Jesu Christe,
Cum Sancto Spíritu in glória Dei Patris. Amen.

2007-01-04T10:32:00.000-06:00

I was reading the second book of Kings the 1st chapter, and was reminded that the Lord is a jealous God he will share his glory with no one. The story goes a little like this...
2 Kings 1 (English Standard Version)

Elijah Denounces Ahaziah

1After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel.

2Now Ahaziah fell through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and lay sick; so he sent messengers, telling them, "Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this sickness." 3But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, "Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? 4Now therefore thus says the LORD, You shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.'" So Elijah went.

5The messengers returned to the king, and he said to them, "Why have you returned?" 6And they said to him, "There came a man to meet us, and said to us, 'Go back to the king who sent you, and say to him, Thus says the LORD, Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.'" 7He said to them, "What kind of man was he who came to meet you and told you these things?" 8They answered him, "He wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his waist." And he said, "It is Elijah the Tishbite."

9Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty men with his fifty. He went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, "O man of God, the king says, 'Come down.'" 10But Elijah answered the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

11Again the king sent to him another captain of fifty men with his fifty. And he answered and said to him, "O man of God, this is the king's order, 'Come down quickly!'" 12But Elijah answered them, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

13Again the king sent the captain of a third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up and came and fell on his knees before Elijah and entreated him, "O man of God, please let my life, and the life of these fifty servants of yours, be precious in your sight. 14Behold, fire came down from heaven and consumed the two former captains of fifty men with their fifties, but now let my life be precious in your sight." 15Then the angel of the LORD said to Elijah, "Go down with him; do not be afraid of him." So he arose and went down with him to the king 16and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron--is it because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word?--therefore you shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but you shall surely die.'"

17So he died according to the word of the LORD that Elijah had spoken. Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, because Ahaziah had no son. 18Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?

2006-12-30T15:14:00.000-06:00

The beast has fallen!

Isaiah 14:12-15 (King James Version)

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Yes with the words of the prophet, i have decided to start this blog .

The great men of the world all go down before the majesty of the king. Justice is served and Saddam is now in the presence of the wrath of God ,

The beast of Babylon is now where the fire never quenches and the worm never dies, into eternal gnashing of teeth .

Woe unto the oppressors of mankind for such is they're fate, o that you had repented and embraced the Lord of life, your would be in the loving side of God's presence in the blessed company of the faithful.

2006-12-28T23:48:00.000-06:00

The Preeminence of Christ

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

This blog is about a slave (myself), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ my Master.

2006-12-28T23:44:00.000-06:00