Category: ecclesiology

Peter The Anabaptist

“Division rules in the childish world of the old covenant (cf. Galatians 4), the world split in two by the cut of circumcision, a world of tribes and tongues and nations and peoples. To be content with division is to revert to that old world. Division is a form of Judaizing.”

Peter Liethart
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/09/maturing-into-one

 

1.) What I’m hearing here is that

a.) The Old Testament God wanted distinctions and proper divisions but the New Testament God has changed and He doesn’t want distinctions and divisions of tribes, tongues, nations and peoples. Marcionism anyone?

b.) The death of Jesus was to the end of creating a Monistic God and egalitarian world where, in the words of the famous Band, U2, “all colors bleed into one.”

2.) Is it too terribly haughty of me to prefer  the epistemologically self conscious Jacobin theologians over the ones who are merely ignorantly Jacobin?

3.) Is the comment, “Division is a form of Judaizing,” an egghead academic way of translating Rodney King’s, “Can’t we all just get along”?

4.) Wasn’t it the Radical Reformation that insisted that the division between clergy and laity was a sinful division? “Peter the Anabaptist” has a certain ring to it.

5.) If “Peter the Anabaptist” is correct then we must conclude the following,

a.) the Protestant insistence on translation into all the vulgar tongues of the nations was a Judaizing tendency. The  Reformation was compromised from the beginning.

b.)  If division is Judaizing then the Protestant Reformation was sin as it divided from Rome.

c.) If division is Judaizing, the distinct historic creeds as they have been embraced by distinct Reformed denominations have been sin.

d.) God involved Himself in a Judaizing tendency on the plains of Shinar.

6.) Dr. Leithart is here ruling exactly opposite the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The position there advocated by the Judaizers was an absolute and uncompromising unity that demanded that the Gentiles become cultural Jews in order to be Christian. The apostles repudiated that idea. Which is to say that Dr. Leithart is actually siding with the Judaizers but calling the Jerusalem Divines the Judaizers. This is worst then Jacobinism. This is devilry.

7.) One wonders if this is a kind of Hindu Christianity where all divisions and distinctions are Maya (illusion).

8.) Unity without diversity is Uniformity and Unitarianism. In Unitarianism all must become as one as the one god that is served. This Leithartian Unitarianism seems to be trying to immanentize the eschaton so that the idea of “the other” is lost in a sea of oneness. It is Van Till’s illustration of the man of water, seeking to climb out of a ocean of water, on a ladder of water, into a heavens of water come to life.

 

Christmas Eve Service Liturgy — 2014

Welcome and Greeting

Invocation

Eternal God, your promise of a coming Savior is spoken in your words to Eve after the fall, in the psalms of David, in the words of the prophets.  Your Word of deliverance is spoken, eternal God, and takes flesh at last in the womb of the virgin.

We ask that Emmanuel would be honored in the people of your Church and that Nations would find themselves bowing the knee to your Christ who alone can provide redemption and grace. We ask this through him whose coming is certain, whose Day draws near: your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Nicene Creed (Responsive)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

THE FIRST LESSON

Scripture —  Genesis 3:15 / Matthew 1:20 / Galatians 4:4

Congregational Response

We speak with gratitude when we see your promise to Eve, of a coming Savior, fulfilled in the Christ child who crushed the head of the Serpent.

 Carol — “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel”  (Brown —  169)

THE SECOND LESSON

Scripture — Genesis 12:3 / Matthew 1:1  — Genesis 22:18 / Romans 9:5

Congregational Response — Father, Thank you for the promise, to the patriarchs, of a coming Christ and then for the promised fulfilled in Christ’s arrival.

Carol: “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” (Brown 184)

THE THIRD LESSON

Scripture — Micah 5:2 / Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-6

Congregational Response — Praise be unto God for providing us the Bread of life as born in the House of Bread

 Carol —  “O Little Town Of Bethlehem” (Brown 402)

Special Music — Aimee Chauvin

THE FOURTH LESSON

Luke 1:46-55 / Luke 2:29-32

Congregational Response —  We thank you for the promise fulfilled that elicited a response that speaks of gratitude for a Salvation that is both individual and global.

Carol  —  “Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus” (Brown 168)

Special Music — Bacon Voice Ensemble

THE FIFTH LESSON

Scripture — Isaiah 7:14 / Matthew 1:23

Congregational Response — We look for no other Redeemer but He who was and is “God with Us,” the Lord Christ.

Carol — “Joy To The World” (Brown 170)

Special Music — Strings and Flute

THE SIXTH LESSON

Scripture — Isaiah 9:2-7  / Revelation 1:12-16

Congregational Response —  Grant us grace Father, to remember that this child is now your Warrior King and that we walk in the path of His conquering work. 

Hymn — Christ Shall Have Dominion (Blue Psalter — 135 Blue)

SEVENTH LESSON

Candlelight Exhortation — Matthew 4:16
Carol — “Silent Night” (Brown 195)

Words To Go

“Advent is concerned with that very connection between memory of the past and hope for the future which is so necessary to man. Advent’s intention is to awaken the most profound and basic memory within us, namely, the memory of  God who became man. Rightly remembered and held, this is a restorative memory; it brings hope, it brings peace, it brings confidence. The purpose of the Church’s year is continually to recite her History, so as to awaken her memory so that she can discern God’s accomplishment in the past so as to provide fuel in the confidence of his promises for the future.”

_________

“The birth of a king has lost most of its meaning in our day, because the few kings remaining are mainly figureheads. In earlier days, it was, however, a momentous event. Whenever a son was born to a king, the entire kingdom celebrated with a joy our holidays today do not have.

Why was the birth of a king’s son so great an event to the poorest man of the realm, and so great a cause for rejoicing? It meant, very simply, that a protector and defender was born, someone who in the days ahead would provide the leadership, unifying force, and strength to repel all enemies, suppress criminals within the realm, and enforce justice. A kingdom without an heir to the throne had an uncertain future. Men being sinners, the kingdom would face internal and external troubles if no king reigned to enforce justice. The succession being uncertain, the kingdom would risk civil war.

The term “enforce justice” tells us much. Man is a sinner, and he is by nature lawless unless he is regenerated by Jesus Christ. Justice thus must be “enforced,” that is, put into operation by force, because otherwise lawlessness and injustice will prevail. If there is no forceful enactment of justice, there is no justice. This is the grim fact people once knew and are now forgetting.

This tells us too what the Scripture means when it speaks of Christ as King, hailed King from His very birth. The Gospel of Matthew gives us His royal genealogy in its first chapter. Revelation 17:14 tells us that He is the universal King, “for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.”

When we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, we thus celebrate the birth of one who is ordained to right every wrong, overthrow every enemy, and enforce justice. He will put down all enemies before time is ended, and He will reign eternally over His people. The news of His birth, and its celebration, is indeed “joy to the world,” because the Lord is come who shall in the fullness of time enforce justice truly and absolutely.

His promise is peace, not the peace of death and the graveyard, but the peace of justice and prosperity. The Virgin Mary rejoiced, declaring of the justice God and her son would finally establish: “He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away” (Luke 1:51-53).

If we believe in Christ, we shall rejoice, and we shall be confident, come
what may. We have a King!”

~ RJR

 

Celibate “Gay” Christians

Link,

Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows

The LGBT community has arrived at a trick that they’ve used to advance their agenda. It is a old trick by now but still one that is used with great effectiveness. This trick is to create a distinction between sodomite practice and sodomite inclination. The LGBT crowd will argue, for example, that that homosexual activity is sinful but the orientation is not. Typically celibate sodomites will then insist that they remain “gay Christians,” but are celibate gay Christians. For an example of this kind of reasoning, a recent Denominational annual meeting found one such person standing up and speaking to his denominational ruling structure saying, “I stand before you as a 40-year-old, single, celibate and chaste yet openly gay man … no longer willing to be silent.”

Now where the trick comes in is that it will be advanced by someone in a discussion that sodomites should be allowed to be members of the Church. Typically someone will protest the idea pointing out the appropriate scriptures. Much heat will arise and then suddenly the original agitator will trot out that when they said that “gays should be allowed to be members” they really meant that celibate sodomites who still self identify as “gay” should allowed to be members.

My conviction on this is that this taking in of celibate sodomites, as members in a Christian church, who still self identify as being “gay,” is just one more way in which the sodomite agenda is advanced. The fact that people, though celibate, still refer to themselves as “gay” is, in my estimation, an attempt to maintain the myth that people are born gay just like they are born left handed or are born black or white. There is not one whit of empirical evidence of this that is not produced by people with an agenda. If the LGBT crowd can linguistically manipulate Christians into accepting the idea that other Christians should be thought of as “gay but celibate” it will be easier to move to the next stage of having those same Christians accept the idea of “gay and not celibate.”

Secondly, ideally, the Biblical Christian abhors his sins, cares not to identify with his sins, and wants nothing to do with his sins any longer. He would never label himself a pervert (“gay Christian”) unless he was trying to preserve this sin in his heart. Yet, the Christian faith is supposed to be the new birth where old things are passed away, and where all things have become new. When the celibate “gay Christian” self identifies as “gay” they are retaining an identity that is counted dead. Ask yourself how much sense it would make if someone saved out of bestiality still self identified as a “cow loving Christian.” Would it make sense for a someone saved out of Necrophilia to still self identify as a “dead person loving Christian.” Even if someone is saved out of kleptomania you never hear them self identifying as a “Thief Christian.” And yet, the Church is told today, by many, that it is perfectly acceptable for people to continue to identify with either a former sin or a current temptation.

Please don’t misunderstand. I celebrate and applaud the grace of God that has saved His people out of perversion and cheer that they are celibate. I only discountenance the idea that they should keep self identifying with their sin. St. Paul could write with sodomites and other repentant sinners in mind,

11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.

I understand that progressive sanctification is incremental and so issues of who we are in Christ Jesus take time to comprehend but at the very least we ought to tell those who have been Redeemed out of sodomy that their identification is no longer in their “gayness.” They are most certainly not “gay Christians.” They are Christians, who, like all Christians, struggle with temptations and even besetting sins. Once this is understood we can pray that from that point their sanctification might well bring them to the point of putting off the old man of perverted desires for the same gender and putting on the new man with its normal desire of heterosexuality.

Deconstructing Vanderklay on Rob Bell

Over at this link

http://paulvanderklay.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/rob-bell-as-gateway-drug-but-in-which-direction/

we find a mild rebuke of anyone who would be so arrogant as to question the orthodoxy of Rob Bell. Of course the author of the piece has no problem questioning the integrity of those who question Rob Bell.

What follows is my response to Paul’s thoughts,

1.) The fact that false teachers have always existed, do exist now, and will always exist does not mean that we should support said false teachers in any way. Rob Bell is clearly,

a.) A universalist

Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 83:

“This reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true.”

b.) A denier of the unique authority of Scripture

Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 67–68:

“It wasn’t until the 300s that what we know as the sixty-six books of the Bible were actually agreed upon as the ‘Bible’. This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true.

c.) Dubious on the central Christian doctrine of the Atonement

The God’s Aren’t Angry. DVD. Authored by Rob Bell

“The blood was never for God, that was just to help humans live with, absorb, and trust, the love of a God who keeps on insisting, trust me.”

Anyone of these would place Bell outside the circle of orthodoxy. All of them taken together distinguishes him very little, in terms of orthodoxy as a whole, from Joseph Smith, The Medieval Cathari, or my ex Brother-in-law who insists he himself is Jesus.

3.) God has even used talking donkeys in the past but that does not mean we should support talking Donkeys as evangelists.

4.) Bell most certainly does not present the Gospel in any positive way. If he is not presenting the Gospel at all (and he is not) then it is not possible to present it in a positive way.

5.) All because there is not a lot more harm that can be done doesn’t mean we should support those who keep doing harm.

6.) Paul Vander Klay said,

“Again, for those of us who are deep into church and the theological landscape if we were to research something we’d have an entire theological filter we’d use to automatically select or de-select churches, books, leaders in order to do our exploration. Normal people don’t work this way. ”

Actually, this is not even close to being true. All people come equipped with a theological filter. Now they may not be epistemologically self conscious about it but they have it all the same and they use that filter just as much as anyone who is “deep into church and the theological landscape.” Paul is just in error here.

7.) Paul V.K. wrote,

“Rob Bell in all of the ways that irritate me is going to put Jesus on the map for millions of people in an attractive way.”

This is another errant statement by Paul.

a.) When Bell speaks about “Jesus” what makes you think he is talking about the Jesus that walks through the Scriptures? Bell’s Jesus is an alien Jesus having precious little, if anything in common with the Jesus in the Bible.

b.) By this reasoning of Paul’s (and yours?) we should rejoice in Mary Baker Eddy, or Sun Myung Moon or Jan Matthys since thy presented Jesus in an attractive manner and gained lots of listeners.

c.) Bell’s “Jesus” is grotesquely ugly. There is nothing attractive at all about Bell’s Jesus.

8.) I do not envy Bell. In point of fact, I pity Bell.

9.) Paul ends by warning us about the “log and speck” danger and yet here is Paul looking to take the speck out of those who critique Bell while missing potential logs in his own eye. This warning about “log and speck” when absolutized would mean that we could not point out error in any one or anything since, as fallen men, we all have our logs with which to contend.

Ambrose contra Symmachus, Piper, Mohler & all R2K

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.”

Proverbs 28:4

In the 4th century Emperor Gratian’s removal of the pagan altar of victory from the Senate was the occasion for a great debate between Symmachus, the leader of the pagan aristocracy, and the ablest Italian ecclesiastic, Bishop Ambrose of Milan (St. Ambrose). Symmachus was the classical Liberal in this debate and was arguing against Ambrose that all the ancient pagan religions should be reinstated in Rome and Christianity not be allowed to be the unique religion of the people. Symmachus had all the liberal qualities that arise when liberals are in the minority. Symmachus was tolerant, generous and simply wanted fairness. Symmachus argued that many roads lead to God — why should the old religion of Rome, under whose aegis the Roman state had prospered, not be left in Peace he reasoned.

“We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one(3) practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later(4) did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last(5) do so….

(Formerly our Emperor) enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites…. Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs….

Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free….

We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”

Read those words of the champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus again, and ask yourself how similar they sound to modern day Symmachus like Christian clergy.

“Well, Christians should step back for a moment and recognize that there is something important here at stake. There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

Albert “Symmachus” Mohler

“We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

John Symmachus Piper

Contrary to Symmachus of old, and modern day Symmachus’, Ambrose was the man who stood upon the principle that Christianity as the one true religion must by necessity eclipse all other religions as the God of the Bible eclipses all other gods. Ambrose dealt with Symmachus’ arguments one by one exposing the fallacy in each of them. In that context he addressed Theodosius as to the need to put away the old pagan of religions as they were empty and ineffectual rites. In 392, after Theodosius gained control of the whole empire, he issued an official proscription of paganism, forbidding anyone in any place whatsoever, even in private, to exercise any of the ancient rites of the ancient religion. This action supporting the Christian faith the “Christian” clergy Piper and Mohler would be aghast over.

Ambrose argued against Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler such,

But, says Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler, let the altars be restored to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”(1) Has any heathen Emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian Emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.

Now, it is true that our leaders are hardly Christian but the principle we see in Ambrose is a Christian contending that the one true faith should be honored as the recognized unique faith of the people. This is contrary to the argument that Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler (and all of R2K) advance when they contend that the one true faith of the people is that all the faiths are equal and should be equally honored.

Who will you stand with? Christian Ambrose of Milan or the consummate Liberals Symmachus, Piper, Mohler and R2K?

The full discussion between Symmachus and Ambrose can be found here,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ambrose-sym.asp