I've got a bone to pick with William Tyndale. Tyndale was one of the coolest guys in the history of the world. He's responsible for most of the poetic phrasing of the KJV, 'cause the KJV translators stole most of it from him. He was martyred for translating the Bible into English and publishing it. Like I said, really cool dude. But here's what he did to tick me off.
Tyndale had a real feel for the flow of language. Most of the stirring phrases of the KJV are Tyndale's renderings. When he got to John 14:2, though, Tyndale, decided to break with Wycliff and translate the Greek word "monai," which the Vulgate rendered "mansiones," as "mansions." Wycliff had used "dwellings," Geneva and the Bishops' Bible used "dwelling places," but the KJV translators stuck with Tyndale and used "mansions," which is why every time you turn around some prosperity nut is talking about how God has a mansion for him.
The Greek word "mone" meant simply resting place. It was used for apartments, monks quarters, inn lodgings, but NEVER to refer to a huge home. Come on, now, look at the Tyndale/KJV rendering: "In my Father's house are many mansions." How can a single house contain many huge houses?
Man, I feel a rant about "streets of gold" coming on.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Book review: 5 Cities That Ruled The World by Douglas Wilson
Douglas Wilson's 5 Cities That Ruled The World kind of left me wondering: did I just read a book, or the pitch for a historical travelogue show on a Christian TV network? It wasn't a bad book at all, it just didn't really have the feel of a book. It was more like the fleshed-out notes for a series of lectures. The premise is that the 5 cities: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London and New York have each exercised a lasting influence over world culture, and each have symbolized the progress of liberty, Jerusalem liberty through spirituality, Athens liberty through democracy, Rome liberty through law, London liberty through letters, and New York liberty through commerce.
There isn't much evidence offered for the progress of liberty idea. Most of what you get is a tour guide summary of the history of each of the cities. Like I said, the book has the feel of a TV travelogue show. There are plenty of gossipy bits thrown in, like Mr. Wilson's belief that the gold of Ophir that enriched Solomon actually coming from Central America via Phoenician traders, or that the works of Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere, and there are a host of jokes that probably worked OK in a lecture, but just didn't make the transition to ink very well. It was an easy read, but I was left wondering if it was really worth the effort.
5 Cities that Ruled the World can get you through a rainy day or a long layover at an airport, but I'm not sure how much of it is gonna be percolating through your mind a week later.
There isn't much evidence offered for the progress of liberty idea. Most of what you get is a tour guide summary of the history of each of the cities. Like I said, the book has the feel of a TV travelogue show. There are plenty of gossipy bits thrown in, like Mr. Wilson's belief that the gold of Ophir that enriched Solomon actually coming from Central America via Phoenician traders, or that the works of Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere, and there are a host of jokes that probably worked OK in a lecture, but just didn't make the transition to ink very well. It was an easy read, but I was left wondering if it was really worth the effort.
5 Cities that Ruled the World can get you through a rainy day or a long layover at an airport, but I'm not sure how much of it is gonna be percolating through your mind a week later.
Witnessing to the waitstaff
I work in the restaurant business. I have for way longer than I really want to admit. One of the odd things about the business is the way that different days have different character. Sunday is not one of those better days, and, sadly, it's due in large part to the crowds of churchy folk who come out to eat after worship service. By "churchy folk" I don't mean Christians, I mean people who go to church, usually very legalistic types. Most of the people who I know in the business who are not Christian and are overtly hostile to the faith are hostile not so much because of the offense of the gospel, but because of the behavior of the "Christians" they encounter on a day to day basis. Maybe it's because of their conscience getting at them about their hypocrisy, but these folk get out of church, go out to eat, and proceed to treat the people taking care of them in a shockingly wicked fashion.
The other sort of Christians who undermine their witness are the genuine folk who lose their audience by tipping poorly, or not tipping at all, after witnessing to someone. Asking the server if you can pray for them as you are about to say grace is a very effective and disarming tactic for introducing people to the gospel, and leaving pamphlets can serve a purpose, but if you leave literature in lieu of a tip, you have completely lost the person you are trying to reach, and leaving a poor tip does the same thing. If you offend someone with anything but the gospel, you risk losing your audience.
The other sort of Christians who undermine their witness are the genuine folk who lose their audience by tipping poorly, or not tipping at all, after witnessing to someone. Asking the server if you can pray for them as you are about to say grace is a very effective and disarming tactic for introducing people to the gospel, and leaving pamphlets can serve a purpose, but if you leave literature in lieu of a tip, you have completely lost the person you are trying to reach, and leaving a poor tip does the same thing. If you offend someone with anything but the gospel, you risk losing your audience.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Ninety-Five Theses
492 years ago today, a man walked up to the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany, and nailed this document to it. And nothing has been the same.
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."
83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"
84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"
85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"
86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"
87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"
88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"
89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."
83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"
84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"
85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"
86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"
87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"
88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"
89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Halloween
Lots of Christians get worked up about Halloween, and with good reason. There are sinister forces behind much of what we dismiss as harmless fun. Halloween is not only WAY more commercial than it was when I was a kid, it has a WAY darker vibe to it. Most of the Halloween related stuff is stuff that I want to keep my kids away from, and, as Christians we need to salvage Halloween so that it can be something that our kids can enjoy, but not something that glorifies evil.
October 31st is the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the cathedral door at Wittemberg. That's enough to throw a party about all by itself. And even if you're not a Protestant, it's an event which was a major step in our political development. Luther's 95 Theses have as much influence on where we are today politically as the Magna Charta.
Consider Luther's defense before the emperor four years later at the Diet of Worms, according to his own account:
"Most serene emperor, illustrious princes, gracious lords.
I obediently appeared at the time appointed yesterday evening, in conformity with the order given me yesterday, and by God's mercies I conjure your majesty and your August highnesses to listen graciously to the defense of a cause which I am assured is just and true. If, through ignorance, I should transgress the usages and proprieties of courts and should fail to give anyone the titles due to him or should act in some gestures or manner against courtly etiquette, I entreat you to pardon me; for I was not brought up in the palaces of kings, but in the seclusion of a cloister. I can say nothing of myself than that I have hitherto sought on earth through the simple-mindedness of my writings and teachings nothing but God's honour and the edification of believers.
Most serene Emperor, gracious electors, nobles and lords. Yesterday I was asked two questions: whether I would confess those pamphlets which were published under my name to be mine and whether I would persist in them or revoke them. To this I answered readily and clearly that I would now and for all eternity admit that these books were mine and were published under my name unless my opponents had changed them with deception or meddlesome wisdom or given false quotations. For I confess nothing but what I myself have written and certainly not the painstaking interpretations and comments of others.
Now I am called upon to answer the second question. I humbly pray your Imperial Majesty and lords, to consider carefully that my books are not all of the same kind. There are some in which I dealt with faith and life in such an evangelical and simple manner that even my opponents must admit that they are useful, innocent and worthy to be read by Christian people. Even the bull, which is otherwise quite fierce and cruel, considers some of my books quite harmless, though it condemns them on the basis of an unnatural judgment. Would I now revoke these books, I would do nothing but condemn the truth which is confessed by all, friend and foe alike. I of all men would be against a common and general confession.
The second group of books is written against the papacy and papal scheming and action, that is against those who through evil teaching and example have ruined Christendom laying it waste with the evils of the spirit and the soul. No one can deny or obscure this fact, since experience and complaint of all men testify that the conscience of Christian believers is sneered at, harassed and tormented by the laws of the Pope and the doctrines of men. Likewise the goods and wealth of this most famous German nation were and are devoured through unbelievable tyranny in unreasonable manner, through decretals and laws, regulations and orders. Yet Canon Law states that the law and teaching of the Pope, whenever contrary to the Gospel and opinions of the holy Fathers, are to be considered in error and rejected. Were I, therefore, to revoke these books I would only strengthen this tyranny and open not only windows, but also doors for such unchristian ways, which would then flourish and rage more freely than ever before. The testimony of my opposition will make the rule of their bold and ignominious malice most intolerable for the poor suffering people...
The third group of my books consists of those I have written against certain private individuals who attempted to defend such Roman tyranny and denounce my pious doctrine. I confess that I have been more bitter and vehement against them than is in keeping with my Christian estate and calling. I do not claim to be a saint, nor do I proclaim my life, but rather the doctrine of Christ. Thus I cannot revoke these books, since my revocation would mean the continuance of their tyrannical, violent and raging rule due to my compliance and hesitancy. The people of God would be treated more violently and unmercifully than ever.
What more shall I say? Since I am a man and not God, I cannot support my pamphlets through any other means then that which the Lord Jesus employed when he was questioned before Ananias and asked concerning his teaching and smitten on his cheek by a servant. He said then: "If I have spoken evil bear witness of the evil." (John. 18:23) If the Lord, who knew that he could not err, did not refuse to hear testimony against his doctrine even from the most miserable servant, how much more should I, the scum of the earth and prone to error, hope and expect that someone should testify against my doctrine. Therefore I pray by the grace of God that your Imperial Majesty and Lordships, and everyone, high or low, should give such testimony, convict me of error and convince me with evangelical and prophetic writings. Should I thus be persuaded, I am most ready and willing to revoke all errors and be the first to throw my books into the fire.
From this it should be evident that I have carefully considered and weighed such discord, peril, uproar and rebellion which is rampant in the world today on account of my teaching, as I was gravely and urgently made aware yesterday. It is quite revealing as far as I am concerned that the divine word causes factions, misunderstanding, and discord to arise. Such, of course, must be the fate and the consequence of the divine Word, even as the Lord himself said: "I am come not to send peace but a sword, to set a son against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt 10:34-37) Therefore we must ponder how wonderful and terrible God is in his counsels, plans and intentions. Perhaps we condemn the Word of God if we do away with our factions and dissensions. It could be a deluge of inestimable evils, indeed a cause of concern lest the imperial rule of our most pious and youthful Emperor should have an unfortunate beginning...
Finally I commend myself to your Majesty and to your Lordships, humbly praying that you will not suffer me, against your will, to be subjected to disgrace and defamation by my enemies.
After this statement the spokesman for the Empire claimed angrily that I had not given a clear answer. Furthermore there was no need to discuss what has already been condemned and decided by councils (Matt 10:17-18). Therefore I was asked to answer in a simple and unsophisticated manner whether I would revoke (Rom 1:13-16). Thereupon I said: "Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows: Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture (John 8:9) or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred (Numbers 15:22; Psalm 119:110; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Tim 6:20-21) and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God (2 Cor 4:2). Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience, (Matt 25:30). God help me. Amen." (Isa 50:9)
October 31st is the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the cathedral door at Wittemberg. That's enough to throw a party about all by itself. And even if you're not a Protestant, it's an event which was a major step in our political development. Luther's 95 Theses have as much influence on where we are today politically as the Magna Charta.
Consider Luther's defense before the emperor four years later at the Diet of Worms, according to his own account:
"Most serene emperor, illustrious princes, gracious lords.
I obediently appeared at the time appointed yesterday evening, in conformity with the order given me yesterday, and by God's mercies I conjure your majesty and your August highnesses to listen graciously to the defense of a cause which I am assured is just and true. If, through ignorance, I should transgress the usages and proprieties of courts and should fail to give anyone the titles due to him or should act in some gestures or manner against courtly etiquette, I entreat you to pardon me; for I was not brought up in the palaces of kings, but in the seclusion of a cloister. I can say nothing of myself than that I have hitherto sought on earth through the simple-mindedness of my writings and teachings nothing but God's honour and the edification of believers.
Most serene Emperor, gracious electors, nobles and lords. Yesterday I was asked two questions: whether I would confess those pamphlets which were published under my name to be mine and whether I would persist in them or revoke them. To this I answered readily and clearly that I would now and for all eternity admit that these books were mine and were published under my name unless my opponents had changed them with deception or meddlesome wisdom or given false quotations. For I confess nothing but what I myself have written and certainly not the painstaking interpretations and comments of others.
Now I am called upon to answer the second question. I humbly pray your Imperial Majesty and lords, to consider carefully that my books are not all of the same kind. There are some in which I dealt with faith and life in such an evangelical and simple manner that even my opponents must admit that they are useful, innocent and worthy to be read by Christian people. Even the bull, which is otherwise quite fierce and cruel, considers some of my books quite harmless, though it condemns them on the basis of an unnatural judgment. Would I now revoke these books, I would do nothing but condemn the truth which is confessed by all, friend and foe alike. I of all men would be against a common and general confession.
The second group of books is written against the papacy and papal scheming and action, that is against those who through evil teaching and example have ruined Christendom laying it waste with the evils of the spirit and the soul. No one can deny or obscure this fact, since experience and complaint of all men testify that the conscience of Christian believers is sneered at, harassed and tormented by the laws of the Pope and the doctrines of men. Likewise the goods and wealth of this most famous German nation were and are devoured through unbelievable tyranny in unreasonable manner, through decretals and laws, regulations and orders. Yet Canon Law states that the law and teaching of the Pope, whenever contrary to the Gospel and opinions of the holy Fathers, are to be considered in error and rejected. Were I, therefore, to revoke these books I would only strengthen this tyranny and open not only windows, but also doors for such unchristian ways, which would then flourish and rage more freely than ever before. The testimony of my opposition will make the rule of their bold and ignominious malice most intolerable for the poor suffering people...
The third group of my books consists of those I have written against certain private individuals who attempted to defend such Roman tyranny and denounce my pious doctrine. I confess that I have been more bitter and vehement against them than is in keeping with my Christian estate and calling. I do not claim to be a saint, nor do I proclaim my life, but rather the doctrine of Christ. Thus I cannot revoke these books, since my revocation would mean the continuance of their tyrannical, violent and raging rule due to my compliance and hesitancy. The people of God would be treated more violently and unmercifully than ever.
What more shall I say? Since I am a man and not God, I cannot support my pamphlets through any other means then that which the Lord Jesus employed when he was questioned before Ananias and asked concerning his teaching and smitten on his cheek by a servant. He said then: "If I have spoken evil bear witness of the evil." (John. 18:23) If the Lord, who knew that he could not err, did not refuse to hear testimony against his doctrine even from the most miserable servant, how much more should I, the scum of the earth and prone to error, hope and expect that someone should testify against my doctrine. Therefore I pray by the grace of God that your Imperial Majesty and Lordships, and everyone, high or low, should give such testimony, convict me of error and convince me with evangelical and prophetic writings. Should I thus be persuaded, I am most ready and willing to revoke all errors and be the first to throw my books into the fire.
From this it should be evident that I have carefully considered and weighed such discord, peril, uproar and rebellion which is rampant in the world today on account of my teaching, as I was gravely and urgently made aware yesterday. It is quite revealing as far as I am concerned that the divine word causes factions, misunderstanding, and discord to arise. Such, of course, must be the fate and the consequence of the divine Word, even as the Lord himself said: "I am come not to send peace but a sword, to set a son against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt 10:34-37) Therefore we must ponder how wonderful and terrible God is in his counsels, plans and intentions. Perhaps we condemn the Word of God if we do away with our factions and dissensions. It could be a deluge of inestimable evils, indeed a cause of concern lest the imperial rule of our most pious and youthful Emperor should have an unfortunate beginning...
Finally I commend myself to your Majesty and to your Lordships, humbly praying that you will not suffer me, against your will, to be subjected to disgrace and defamation by my enemies.
After this statement the spokesman for the Empire claimed angrily that I had not given a clear answer. Furthermore there was no need to discuss what has already been condemned and decided by councils (Matt 10:17-18). Therefore I was asked to answer in a simple and unsophisticated manner whether I would revoke (Rom 1:13-16). Thereupon I said: "Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows: Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture (John 8:9) or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred (Numbers 15:22; Psalm 119:110; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Tim 6:20-21) and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God (2 Cor 4:2). Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience, (Matt 25:30). God help me. Amen." (Isa 50:9)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The cult of blessing
What is up with these folk who are always talking about blessings, and specifically THEIR blessing? They have worship songs entreating God to pour out His blessing on them. The way they talk about blessing, clearly they mean material things. And it comes from folk who aren't into the prosperity gospel, too. Is it such a trivial thing that God took on human flesh and suffered and died to give you eternal life, that you have to have a house and a new car, too?
"In this way, the promises also that are offered us in the law are all ineffectual and void. For this condition, that we should carry out the law--upon which the promises depend and by which alone they are to be performed--will never be fulfilled."
John Calvin, Institutes
"In this way, the promises also that are offered us in the law are all ineffectual and void. For this condition, that we should carry out the law--upon which the promises depend and by which alone they are to be performed--will never be fulfilled."
John Calvin, Institutes
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
It's Greek to me
When I went back to college in '84 after a year and a half dropout, I registered for New Testament Greek. I didn't know why. At that time I would have said that I was a Christian, but to say I was horribly backslidden would have been an understatement. I lied about why I was taking the class, claiming I wanted to learn classical Greek, but it wasn't available. I did two years of Koine, some Homer and Plato, all sloppily, then moved on. In '96, I pulled my Greek New Testament off of the shelf. I didn't know why. I was still backslidden, and I had no idea why I was trying Greek again. I got three chapters into the Gospel of John. In '01, I got a New Testament with Greek and Latin on facing pages and started working through it. I wasn't sure why. I was still backslidden, but lots of things seemed to be cleaning themselves up, with little effort on my part. In '05, I pulled the Greek/Latin NT back off of the shelf. It didn't matter to me why, it was something I had to do. God had pulled me out of the mire of my past and blessed me with a growing family at the age when most men are becoming grandparents, and I knew that He had been nudging me at this Greek thing for 21 years, and there must be a reason. I'm still sloppy at it, but I spend alot of time with it.
There's a need out there for broadening Greek literacy in the Christian community. Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country, and their converts are learning Arabic because they are taught that their god revealed himself through that language, and he only truly hears prayer in that language. Most of their critiques of Christianity are based on questioning the reliability of scripture, precisely the thing that learning Greek prepares one to defend. Learning enough Greek to talk about the three words for love in the NT, or to fake it to people with an interlinear NT isn't enough. If we are going to defend the faith in the future, we must be able to defend the documents which are our primary evidence. I've got six kids to try to get this passed on to, I'll let you know how the experiment proceeds.
There's a need out there for broadening Greek literacy in the Christian community. Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country, and their converts are learning Arabic because they are taught that their god revealed himself through that language, and he only truly hears prayer in that language. Most of their critiques of Christianity are based on questioning the reliability of scripture, precisely the thing that learning Greek prepares one to defend. Learning enough Greek to talk about the three words for love in the NT, or to fake it to people with an interlinear NT isn't enough. If we are going to defend the faith in the future, we must be able to defend the documents which are our primary evidence. I've got six kids to try to get this passed on to, I'll let you know how the experiment proceeds.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Football conviction
I used to be obsessed with the NFL. My wife would probably tell you that I still am, but she just doesn't appreciate the fine-grained distinctions of obsession. Anyway, about nine years ago, I was laying on the couch reading Augustine's Confessions, and stumbled across his discussion of his obsession with gladiatorial spectacles and struggles to overcome it. Wow, that was me. Augustine was reading my mail 1300 years before I was born. So how could I fix it? I'm no saint, so I was skeptical about my ability to just pray my way out of a serious obsession. I had to have something hands-on to do. Here's what I came up with.
I made a rationing/bargaining system for my football watching. In order to watch a game, I had to have spent at least as much time studying scripture as I would spend watching football. It was an inconsistent system, some weeks I'd make it, some I wouldn't. Then I discovered audio Bible in mp3 format. Max McLean became my friend. I spend about 6 hours a week reading scripture, but with the audio Bible I spend more than double that in the Word each week. Parts of the Bible that were obscure to me have become familiar just through repetiton. And football has fallen into its proper perspective in my life.
Of course, it helps that I'm a redskins fan, so it's not like there's much for me to be interested in, anyway.
I made a rationing/bargaining system for my football watching. In order to watch a game, I had to have spent at least as much time studying scripture as I would spend watching football. It was an inconsistent system, some weeks I'd make it, some I wouldn't. Then I discovered audio Bible in mp3 format. Max McLean became my friend. I spend about 6 hours a week reading scripture, but with the audio Bible I spend more than double that in the Word each week. Parts of the Bible that were obscure to me have become familiar just through repetiton. And football has fallen into its proper perspective in my life.
Of course, it helps that I'm a redskins fan, so it's not like there's much for me to be interested in, anyway.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Constantine Conspiracies
Since I just talked about a used-to-be-hot-now-not book, why not deal with the most annoying aspect of The DaVinci Code?
The conspiracy theory that involves the Roman Emperor Constantine remolding Christianity to suit himself, revising the scriptures and then destroying all existing copies of scripture is not unique to The DaVinci Code. (Here's a clue...if Dan Brown ever had a truly original thought, it would probably die of loneliness.) This idea has been bouncing around for at least a century and a half. I remember the first time I encountered it, back in the fall of 1982. Then, it was a guy explaining how the Bible had originally taught reincarnation, but the Council of Nicea had removed all references to reincarnation. If you watch the History Channel or are just kindly disposed to conspiracy theories, you have, no doubt, heard it repeatedly. It goes like this: Constantine wanted to consolidate his power, so he took Christianity, which was a minor religion which held that Jesus was just a teacher, and transformed it, elevating Jesus to the status of God, all of this done at the Council of Nicea in 325. Then, all scriptural references supporting the original form of the religion were edited out, all of the existing copies were destroyed, and new versions of the scriptures were issued.
The problem with the theory is that there is not one scrap of evidence for it. We have hundreds of manuscripts and fragments from before 325, and every one of them matches the post-Nicene versions of the scriptures. But all of the originals were destroyed, the theory claims, so the evidence is gone. Conspiracy folks don't use evidence, the lack of evidence is evidence in itself, it is proof for them of the existence of the conspiracy. "The Bible originally taught reincarnation," they say, but where is the evidence? Constantine destroyed it. "Christianity originally believed that Jesus was a prophet, not God," they say, but where is the evidence? Constantine destroyed it. They willfully ignore that we do have evidence, and all of it points to the scriptures pre- and post-Nicea being identical. The existence of any pre-325 fragments that match post-Nicene ones is proof that the conspiracy is false.
The Council of Nicea is an issue that I'll take up later, that's a post to itself. The point is that the issue of Jesus' divinity was NOT a point at the council, the Arians believed that Jesus is a created divinity, a litte god, as it were. The issue at Nicea was not whether or not Jesus was divine, it was over whether he was God or a god.
The conspiracy theory that involves the Roman Emperor Constantine remolding Christianity to suit himself, revising the scriptures and then destroying all existing copies of scripture is not unique to The DaVinci Code. (Here's a clue...if Dan Brown ever had a truly original thought, it would probably die of loneliness.) This idea has been bouncing around for at least a century and a half. I remember the first time I encountered it, back in the fall of 1982. Then, it was a guy explaining how the Bible had originally taught reincarnation, but the Council of Nicea had removed all references to reincarnation. If you watch the History Channel or are just kindly disposed to conspiracy theories, you have, no doubt, heard it repeatedly. It goes like this: Constantine wanted to consolidate his power, so he took Christianity, which was a minor religion which held that Jesus was just a teacher, and transformed it, elevating Jesus to the status of God, all of this done at the Council of Nicea in 325. Then, all scriptural references supporting the original form of the religion were edited out, all of the existing copies were destroyed, and new versions of the scriptures were issued.
The problem with the theory is that there is not one scrap of evidence for it. We have hundreds of manuscripts and fragments from before 325, and every one of them matches the post-Nicene versions of the scriptures. But all of the originals were destroyed, the theory claims, so the evidence is gone. Conspiracy folks don't use evidence, the lack of evidence is evidence in itself, it is proof for them of the existence of the conspiracy. "The Bible originally taught reincarnation," they say, but where is the evidence? Constantine destroyed it. "Christianity originally believed that Jesus was a prophet, not God," they say, but where is the evidence? Constantine destroyed it. They willfully ignore that we do have evidence, and all of it points to the scriptures pre- and post-Nicea being identical. The existence of any pre-325 fragments that match post-Nicene ones is proof that the conspiracy is false.
The Council of Nicea is an issue that I'll take up later, that's a post to itself. The point is that the issue of Jesus' divinity was NOT a point at the council, the Arians believed that Jesus is a created divinity, a litte god, as it were. The issue at Nicea was not whether or not Jesus was divine, it was over whether he was God or a god.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Shack
Yeah, I know, I'm a year late to be talking about The Shack, but I ran across a YouTube video of a sermon telling people to not read it and it got me thinking about it.
I agree that the average Christian shouldn't be reading The Shack, if they are the kind of person who would form their view of the Trinity from a work of fiction and not from a careful study of scripture. And that's not as straightforward as it might seem. Let me explain what I mean. I love Hamlet, I mean really. It's one of the few works other than the Bible or Mere Christianity that I can pick up at any time and just start reading, regardless of my mood. Well, about ten years ago, I discovered Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet, and it's one of my favorite movies. I can watch it anytime, mostly because the script IS the play. But the problem is that now, when I read the play, I see images from the film in my mind. I'm no longer reading the play, I'm rehearsing the film, which is someone else's conception of the play. It's taken alot of work to get back to the play itself, and I'm still not all the way there. Back to my point, when dealing with something as incomprehensible as the doctrine of the Trinity, mixing in The Shack is asking for trouble. It is far too easy to fall back into concepts which came from a book, and not The Book.
Did I mention that I really liked the book? I did, it's a great book. I was in tears at the end, but I've got a lotta kids and I'm a real sucker for emotionalism involving kids. People get worked up about misrepresentation of the Trinity. I'm sure there were some priests with St. Patrick in Ireland getting really ticked off at him for using a shamrock to explain the Trinity. You just have to make sure that you're focused on scripture.
BTW: I still think the character of Papa is just the oracle from The Matrix rehashed.
I agree that the average Christian shouldn't be reading The Shack, if they are the kind of person who would form their view of the Trinity from a work of fiction and not from a careful study of scripture. And that's not as straightforward as it might seem. Let me explain what I mean. I love Hamlet, I mean really. It's one of the few works other than the Bible or Mere Christianity that I can pick up at any time and just start reading, regardless of my mood. Well, about ten years ago, I discovered Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet, and it's one of my favorite movies. I can watch it anytime, mostly because the script IS the play. But the problem is that now, when I read the play, I see images from the film in my mind. I'm no longer reading the play, I'm rehearsing the film, which is someone else's conception of the play. It's taken alot of work to get back to the play itself, and I'm still not all the way there. Back to my point, when dealing with something as incomprehensible as the doctrine of the Trinity, mixing in The Shack is asking for trouble. It is far too easy to fall back into concepts which came from a book, and not The Book.
Did I mention that I really liked the book? I did, it's a great book. I was in tears at the end, but I've got a lotta kids and I'm a real sucker for emotionalism involving kids. People get worked up about misrepresentation of the Trinity. I'm sure there were some priests with St. Patrick in Ireland getting really ticked off at him for using a shamrock to explain the Trinity. You just have to make sure that you're focused on scripture.
BTW: I still think the character of Papa is just the oracle from The Matrix rehashed.
Friday, October 23, 2009
God doesn't have our prejudices
We too often confuse our own prejudices with the will of God. Consider sexual sin. In God's eyes, sexual sin is sexual sin, but we come up with all sorts of degrees of sin based on our personal prejudices and preferences. A cohabitating same-sex couple would not be at all welcome in most sanctuaries on Sunday morning, while a cohabitating hetero couple would. I know of a very large local church which has a program to reach out in love to gays to explain to them the position of God's word on the "lifestyle," yet a HUGE portion of the church's membership consists of women who have never been married, yet have multiple children. Does struggling with a besetting sin mean that one is not a Christian? Would we tell an alcoholic that he is not really a Christian until he's completely sober?
On the other hand, we cannot ignore sin just because in God's eyes it's the same as other sexual sins (Ephesians 5:3). The monstrosities of eisegesis committed in the name of "gay theology" stretch the imagination, redefining some words and ignoring the explicit meaning of others. Focusing on Jesus' love for the sinner is completely appropriate, but I wonder how loving the man who drove the money changers from the temple with a scourge would have been with the male cult prostitutes who were driven out of the temple in Josiah's reign (2 Kings 23:7). God loves us more than our sin, but He also loves us too much to leave us in our sin.
On the other hand, we cannot ignore sin just because in God's eyes it's the same as other sexual sins (Ephesians 5:3). The monstrosities of eisegesis committed in the name of "gay theology" stretch the imagination, redefining some words and ignoring the explicit meaning of others. Focusing on Jesus' love for the sinner is completely appropriate, but I wonder how loving the man who drove the money changers from the temple with a scourge would have been with the male cult prostitutes who were driven out of the temple in Josiah's reign (2 Kings 23:7). God loves us more than our sin, but He also loves us too much to leave us in our sin.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
It's not in the Bible, and it comes from the earth
This is a tremendously popular rationalization for those who want to smoke marijuana although they belong to Christ. I used it extensively myself in my backslidden teen and early adolescent years, and I hear it all the time from younger Christians. It is, and was when I used it, a lie used to cover sin. I heard a radio call-in counseling show the other day in which a young man called in with this excuse, and the response given to him was that we are commanded to obey the law of the land, as if there were no direct reference to drug abuse in scripture.
The Greek word translated as "sorcery" in the KJV, and most of the newer translations, in Galatians 5:20, Revelation 9:21;18:23 is "pharmakeia," the word from which we get pharmacy. Just as the KJV translators used the word "servant" for "doulos," which means slave, because slavery was an unknown institution in daily life in 16-17th century England, they used "sorcery" to describe the use of herbs to alter consciousness because alcohol was the substance they used for that, and "potions" were the province of witches. There is, in fact, direct scriptural reference to drug abuse.
The unfortunate thing for me is that I didn't learn this until I learned Greek, long after I had given up the herb. It might not be a bad idea if we started teaching this to our young people so that they wouldn't have the rationalization available at all.
The Greek word translated as "sorcery" in the KJV, and most of the newer translations, in Galatians 5:20, Revelation 9:21;18:23 is "pharmakeia," the word from which we get pharmacy. Just as the KJV translators used the word "servant" for "doulos," which means slave, because slavery was an unknown institution in daily life in 16-17th century England, they used "sorcery" to describe the use of herbs to alter consciousness because alcohol was the substance they used for that, and "potions" were the province of witches. There is, in fact, direct scriptural reference to drug abuse.
The unfortunate thing for me is that I didn't learn this until I learned Greek, long after I had given up the herb. It might not be a bad idea if we started teaching this to our young people so that they wouldn't have the rationalization available at all.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
KJV lunacy
Wow, what can you say about folks who believe that an English translation is divinely inspired? About as much as you can about the ignorance-based weirdness you get from those who've been poisoned by the Nation of Islam when it comes to the KJV. You can spot one of these victims of NOI propaganda pretty easily, they will tell you that King James was the translator of the KJV (that's how it got the name, of course), and then go onto a rant about the supposed perversions of James I and how he changed the Bible to suit his own purposes (as if we don't have the sources in the original languages). Talking Bible to someone who hasn't read it but been corrupted by the NOI is a lot like talking to someone who believes that the Da Vinci Code is historically solid.
It seems that the only thing that we as Americans are more ignorant of than the Bible is the History of the Bible.
It seems that the only thing that we as Americans are more ignorant of than the Bible is the History of the Bible.
tithing time
Wandering back to the topic of tithing, the most valuable thing that God has given us, far beyond financial resources, is time, so why don't we hear anyone teaching that 10% of our time is to be devoted to God? 16.8 hours a week is not that much, I spend almost that much time a week watching TV during football season, and I'm really not a TV person. An hour of devotional time in the morning, and another in the evening, added to church attendance and a minimum of ministry service, and that 16.8 hours a week is easily exceeded. So why don't we do it?
Probably the same reason why most Christians haven't read through the Bible.
Probably the same reason why most Christians haven't read through the Bible.
Jesus went to Hell???
This is a tenet of faith in the Word of Faith movement. It is claimed that Jesus spent the time between His burial and resurrection in Hell battling Satan and suffering for us. It preaches really well. Each of the big TV star word-faith preachers has their own dramatic spin of Jesus being tortured, then overcoming His captors and whuppin' up on Satan and snatching the keys to Hell and Death from him. Some even claim that belief in this is essential to salvation. The problem is that it is 100% unscriptural. They've substituted the traditions of men for the Word of God.
The notion goes back to the medieval version of the Apostles' Creed, which contains (in English) the line "He descended into Hell." The more ancient versions of the Creed do not contain this line, and the Greek word translated as "Hell" is "katotata," which literally means "the lowest things." The Greek words for Hell in the NT are "gehenna" and "Hades," not "katotata." The word "katotata" does not even occur in the NT.
There is no scriptural basis for this doctrine. Those that hold it go and pick out verses for it, but what they are doing is constructing a doctrine, then looking for proof-texts, not reading the text. If Jesus spent that time in Hell battling Satan, why did He tell the thief on the cross that he would be with Him "today" in paradise (Luke 23:43)?
The notion goes back to the medieval version of the Apostles' Creed, which contains (in English) the line "He descended into Hell." The more ancient versions of the Creed do not contain this line, and the Greek word translated as "Hell" is "katotata," which literally means "the lowest things." The Greek words for Hell in the NT are "gehenna" and "Hades," not "katotata." The word "katotata" does not even occur in the NT.
There is no scriptural basis for this doctrine. Those that hold it go and pick out verses for it, but what they are doing is constructing a doctrine, then looking for proof-texts, not reading the text. If Jesus spent that time in Hell battling Satan, why did He tell the thief on the cross that he would be with Him "today" in paradise (Luke 23:43)?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
some thoughts on the tithe
I've been wrestling with the issue of tithing lately, mostly because I discovered that I had fallen into a really ugly form of legalism about it. I'm still not sure what the whole biblical perspective on the issue is, but two things I know for sure: one, the tithe is a biblical concept which predates the Law; and, two, ALL that we possess belongs to God, and we are obligated to use everything we possess in a way that honors God.
What bothers me is the abuse of the third chapter of Malachi as a proof-text for tithing. One of the most basic principles of exegesis is that the Bible can never mean what it never meant, and the storehouse of Malachi 3:10 never meant anything other than the storehouse of the temple at Jerusalem. To transfer what applied to the temple to the modern local church seems to me to be stepping onto a slippery slope which, at its end, will have us transferring all sorts of types and shadows into the local church and failing to discern that WE, as Spirit-filled believers are the temple today. And there is no way to use the "robbing God" metaphor of Malachi to justify the tithe without ending up arguing that God needs something from us (see Psalm 50).
Another problem I have is that the ONLY reference to tithing in the entire New Testament (Matt 23:23, Luke 11:42) is made by Christ to the Pharisees before the crucifixion. Nothing anywhere else. One would be on as firm ground using the cleansing of the leper (Matt 8:2-4, Mark 1:40-44,
Luke 5:12-14) as justification for requiring an offering to be made at the local church every time God heals someone.
Well...I'll ramble on later when I'm less ambivalent about it.
What bothers me is the abuse of the third chapter of Malachi as a proof-text for tithing. One of the most basic principles of exegesis is that the Bible can never mean what it never meant, and the storehouse of Malachi 3:10 never meant anything other than the storehouse of the temple at Jerusalem. To transfer what applied to the temple to the modern local church seems to me to be stepping onto a slippery slope which, at its end, will have us transferring all sorts of types and shadows into the local church and failing to discern that WE, as Spirit-filled believers are the temple today. And there is no way to use the "robbing God" metaphor of Malachi to justify the tithe without ending up arguing that God needs something from us (see Psalm 50).
Another problem I have is that the ONLY reference to tithing in the entire New Testament (Matt 23:23, Luke 11:42) is made by Christ to the Pharisees before the crucifixion. Nothing anywhere else. One would be on as firm ground using the cleansing of the leper (Matt 8:2-4, Mark 1:40-44,
Luke 5:12-14) as justification for requiring an offering to be made at the local church every time God heals someone.
Well...I'll ramble on later when I'm less ambivalent about it.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Liar, Lunatic, Lord
I've heard lots of people quote this argument, but none have ever come close to the clarity or elegance of the original.
" And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of
right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was -that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.
" And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of
right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was -that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.
Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips. One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in
history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when
they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and
conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble
and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Who's being moralistic?
OK, here's another thing that really sticks in my craw. (Yeah, I know I claim to be formerly cranky...I'm still cranky, I'm just nicer and more gentle about it.)
I run into "pro-choice" folks who fall back into a position of saying that "pro-life" folks are moralistic and judgmental. I get this often enough that it can't be just me, it must be one of their talking points. Let me take these points in reverse order. By saying that someone is judgmental as if it were something negative, they are betraying a self-defeating relativism. Condemning a man for trying to impose his morality on others is trying to impose YOUR morality on him.
The claim that "pro-lifers" are moralistic is what really agitates me. If you look at it from a purely scientific perspective, human life begins at the moment of conception. Any attempt to say otherwise is an appeal to a moral argument. You can try to disguise it by saying that you don't want to be judgmental or that it's "above your pay grade," but placing the beginning of human life at any point other than the moment of conception is being moralistic.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Entitlement and the Evil One
Be very cautious anytime you find yourself thinking, "I deserve [X]," because it's probably not really you thinking that. The feeling of entitlement, and resulting anger we feel when we don't get what we think we "deserve" is, to steal a line from Steve Brown, "a lie from the pit of Hell, and it smells like smoke." Satan's initial attack on humanity (Genesis 3:5) was to imply that God was holding out on us, keeping us from something that we "deserved," and it's still his most effective tactic today. "I deserve" is almost always coming from a sinister place, so be careful and examine your real motives. I don't know about you, but for me, "I deserve" is just a way to justify something that has an underlying, sinful (covetous, lustful, angry, gluttonous, et al) root.
K.I.T.
Hey, if you're not able to get the hardcopy, a pdf of the KIT is available at http://www.archive.org/download/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0/wtclassic/Kingdom_Interlinear-Greek_Scriptures_1969.pdf. It probably won't do much good to show it to your JW buddies on a computer, as they'll likely think it's a fake, but you'll know what it says.
Monday, September 14, 2009
An indispensible tool for dealing with the JWs at your door
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
This rare jewel is kinda hard to come by (try http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=kingdom+interlinear&_sacat=See-All-Categories), but it is worth it's weight in gold. The Watchtower stopped printing this years ago, I'm guessing either because they got tired of it being used against them, or because they realized that they can't keep their minions in line if they hand them a book that proves that the New World Translation is complete rubbish.
I've actually had the exquisite experience of watching a JW at my door turn to her senior helper who had walked up and whisper, "He's got a Kingdom Interlinear!" Nothing like having an interlinear Westcott & Hort with the NWT text in a column next to it, so that you can point out to your doorstep guests that the NWT does indeed NOT say what the Greek text says.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Romans 10:2 (KJV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
