The Biblical Definition of Sainthood

Many times, because of the influence of some older churches, I think many people have misconceptions regarding who or what is a "saint." Many think that a church has to go through a complicated list of preconditions before a person can be considered a saint, whereas others may think that you have to wait until a person is dead and be sure they died a faithful and honorable believer before you call them a saint. The mindset becomes one where there are essentially two classes of Christian: the saints, who are "super-Christians," and then the "normal Christians" on earth who are striving to meet the saints as a standard, although most are reserved to believe they never will. Although many will say that the specific saints are simply those an individual church chooses to honor and set up as an example and that all believers who have gone on to be with the Lord are considered saints, it is undeniable that separation occurs both in everyday language and application. The connotation of the word "saint" has been skewed since it's use in the early church.

Let's take a moment to briefly examine what scripture teaches regarding sainthood:

Firstly, the term "saints" always refers to Christians in toto. Paul begins his epistle to the Romans by addressing it "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints" (Rom 1:7). He addresses his first epistle to Corinth "to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling" (1 Cor 1:2). Again: "to the saints who are at Ephesus" (Eph 1:1). Again: "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi" (Phi 1:1). And again: "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae" (Col 1:2). The saints were not a special group of Christians, nor even an exemplary group of Christians - if you are a Christian, you are a saint by default.

Secondly, we are saints by our calling from God - not by our deeds. We have already looked at Paul's definition of saints as being those who are "beloved of God" and are "called" (Rom 1:7), and that saints are those "who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" and are such "by calling" (1 Cor 1:2). God likewise blessed the saints in Christ and "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him" (Eph 1:4). Our state of being a saint comes from God's effectual calling unto salvation, not because we did x amount of good deeds or performed y amount of miracles.

The very Greek term translated as "saint" - hagios - means "holy" or "consecrated," and refers to something that is separated specifically for God. The idea is that while most that is in the world is made for the service of the word, that which is hagios is set apart for God. It referred not only to people, but, in a Jewish context, to vestments, ornaments, etc. The saints were those who were called by God to be holy and chosen by God to be taken out of this world (cf. John 15:19).

In many ways - within the context of the New Testament - this was God's antithesis to the Pharisees. The Hebrew root word from which the Pharisees derived their name (perushim) meant "one who is separated," and the Pharisees believed that their traditions and way of life essentially "separated" them from the society at large, leading them into a concentrated spiritual life. In a similar way, God has separated, is separating, and will separate His saints from the world and into true spiritual life. However, whereas the Pharisees separated themselves on their own accord and justified their separation by their deeds, the saints are separated by the effectual calling of God and are justified not by their deeds but by the atoning blood of Christ.

All Christians, by biblical definition, are saints, and are so by the blessing they have received from God in their salvation. We should not be afraid to use this term for brothers and sisters, and neither should we be afraid to use it for the church. It has beautiful theological implications when used in the way scripture defines it. The one thing it should teach us, above all, is that God alone deserves any glory we may possess or pretend to have. All glory comes from Him, and so all glory returns to Him. Soli Deo Gloria.

"With Scripture" versus "From Scripture"

Many people don't realize that there is a world of difference between trying to prove theology with scripture and proving theology from scripture. What do I mean by these two terms? Let's take a moment to examine them.

From scripture refers to teaching theology directly from the pages of scripture and from relevant verses. That is, teaching justification from justification verses, teaching about works from passages about works, teaching about the deity of Christ where that is clearly the topic or part of what is being discussed, etc. For example, John 14:6 is, from the immediate context and the context shown around it, is obviously a passage about salvation and the Solus Christus nature thereof, and so it can be used for those related topics.

With scripture refers to teaching theology using scripture, but in a roundabout way. That is, you attempt to use a passage of scripture as maybe an "example" of what you're talking about, or you're using a passage of scripture to teach something that the passage clearly isn't teaching about. Countless examples of this were seen in Rob Bell's book Love Wins (see my review of it here): the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was used to teach about Christ's resurrection (which it wasn't about, at all); the Parable of the Prodigal Son was used to teach about heaven and hell (which, again, it wasn't about, at all). They were tied only loosely to the topic, so that the undiscerning might have been unable to understand how Rob Bell had used them grossly out of context.

Being able to discern between these two is vitally important in our treatment of scripture, and for a two-fold reason: 1) it helps us to understand the topic being discussed in the larger context; 2) it presents us with a stronger root in the teachings of scripture, certainly much stronger than a string of weak proof texts.

Stop abusing Matthew 18:20!

One of the most commonly misquoted verses of the Bible is, amazingly enough, a fairly harmless one:

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. [Matthew 18:20]

Many people quote this in reference to the church. "Ah, see!" they declare, "Where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there! So He's here with us in this church!"

Let me first say this is simply an illogical assumption - God is there among us even if there's just one. God's presence and power is not dependent on numbers (otherwise Elijah would have been in trouble when facing the priests of Baal). Any way, can you imagine the following scenario taking place?

Christian: "Oh Lord, before I go to bed, I'd just like to pray..."
God: "Hold up a minute...how many are there praying with you?"
Christian: "Uh...just me."
God: "What? You can't get a friend or two to join you?"
Christian: "No, they're asleep already."
God: "Sorry. No go."

Now let me say this assumption also does not fit with the real context of the verse.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." [Matthew 18:15-20; emphasis mine]

The full context here is actually church judgment. The Law said that two or three witnesses were enough to testify against a person, and was enough (if the person was still unrepentant) for the church to start enacting discipline. Christ expands this ("Again I say to you...") regarding the agreement between two or more people. Then, finally comes verse 20, which so many people believe simply means church worship. In actuality, it is merely an extension of church discipline and decision-making. This is the significance of Christ's use of "two or three."

Many might think I'm just splitting hairs here, but Matthew 18:20 (like Revelation 3:20) is one of those verses that just gets so overused that I think people forget the immediate context. Pardon the ranting, and take care.

This Son of David

The following is based off of "Pinball Wizard" by the Who.

Ever since I fell from Heaven
I roamed about the land
From Abel to Zechariah
I plagued the sons of man
But I ain't seen nothing like him
Even I get filled with awe
This Son of David
Fulfills the whole dang Law!

He heals sick and lepers
Makes the paralytics walk
Hangin' out with fishers
The rich men he just balks
The scribes all try to trap him
But they can't find a flaw
This Son of David
Fulfills the whole dang Law!

He debates Sanhedrin
And He always wins
And even stranger
He absolves men of their sins

(How do you think he does it?)
I don't know!
(Who gave him that right?)

His friends are all the rejects
He calls the sinners saints
Don't starts any fightin'
His record's got no taint
Though He's always tempted
Never sins at all
This Son of David
Fulfills the whole dang Law!

I thought I was
In charge of everything
But God just handed
Authority to Him

The gates of hell are broken
I can't beat this man
His disciples are secured
He's snatched them from my hand
The Spirit's gone among them
His church'll never fall
This Son of David
Fulfilled the whole dang Law!

Law, Righteousness and Salvation

Perhaps some of the main differences between universalism (everyone goes to heaven), inclusivism (some non-Christians will go to heaven) and exclusivism (salvation in Christ alone) rests both in the place of God's Law and Christ's Righteousness.

I created a diagram to explain this further:

Universalism excludes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. Some universalists might argue that Christ's righteousness covers mankind in toto and for this reason all go to heaven, but this contradicts the teaching of scripture that eternal life is dependent upon belief in Christ (John 3:16). Some universalists will likewise propose some level of God's Law - or at least some social standard for individuals to follow. The problem with this is two-fold: 1) it is no longer a standard of righteousness, but rather a therapeutic moral code of ethics; 2) the idea of a consequence-free afterlife makes any reason for morals in this life absolutely senseless. That is, why avoid being a Heinrich Himmler and shoot for being an Oscar Schindler if both Schindler and Himmler will, in the end, both be in heaven?

Inclusivism might include God's Law, but does not depend on Christ's righteousness. It recognizes that God has a standard and a set rule of morality and ethics, but that nothing else is needed of others to obtain salvation. If a person is "good," then it is possible for them to be considered saved and enter into heaven upon death. Therefore, whereas inclusivists may follow through the works of the Law, they will stop short at the righteousness of Christ. However, this seems to forget that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), and that all our good deeds "are like a filthy garment" (Isa 64:6). The point of the Law is to "shut up everyone under sin," so that none may consider themselves righteous before God, and "so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal 3:22). As "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), there is none on earth who is without need of Christ's righteousness. Some inclusivists might argue that God may choose to bestow His righteousness upon unbelievers by His own mercy, but this thinking suffers in a few points:

1) No where in scripture does it say God has any obligation to save anyone outside of faith. Bringing unrepentant sinners into a state of repentance is enough of a sign of His mercy.

2) This ignores the constant teaching of scripture, which states that it is in faith by which we receive our righteousness. Those outside of faith are condemned already because they are outside of faith and still live in their sins (cf. John 3:18), and it is only "those who are in Christ Jesus" who are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1). Righteousness is given through faith, and the righteousness of Christ is solely conditional upon faith.

Exclusivism includes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. We are saved by Christ alone for the glory of God alone. This salvation is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is that righteousness "apart from the Law," which is only "through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Rom 3:21-22). Christ told His followers:

I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. [John 15:5-6]

Man left on his own is helpless without God. No one will be in hell simply because they did not meet a set of beliefs - but rather, they will be in hell for their sins. However, with Christ, the sacrifice for our sins and the only righteous man to ever live, we are able to stand before the Father and be considered sons in adoption.

Of course the world, as a whole, does not care for exclusivism, as the very name sounds like something with prejudice or bias. The world at large wants us to believe in universalism, whereas most liberal Christians think only someone with a closed mind would reject inclusivism. Nonetheless, exclusivism is simply another word for the biblical teachings of salvation. Many times in Acts and the epistles, salvation is always conditional upon the words "in Christ." Always, always "in Christ." There is no other way to describe the focal point of salvation except "in Christ."

"Predestined" does not equal "predicted"

A common analogy used by many to try to explain God's knowledge of future events (and yet maintain some level of man's autonomy) is one that explains it as a very, very educated prediction. One such analogy involves a stock broker who is familiar with the trends of the stock market, and so accordingly plans his trading with those trends. Another version is of a veteran football coach who is well aware of his opponent's strategies and thus plans his game accordingly. However, both these examples are dangerous, because they lead one into the doctrine known as open theism.

Permit me to explain a few problems with these analogies:

• These scenarios present someone with fallible knowledge. That is, the stock broker does not know for sure what is going to happen, only an educated guess at what will happen. The football coach might likewise have a general idea of how his opponent will behave, but not an infallible foreknowledge of what will happen. This introduces the idea that God has limited knowledge of future events.
• These scenarios present the possibility of both men being wrong. Even if we say the stock broker is right 99% of the time, there is still that 1% wherein he is wrong. The same for the football coach. This introduces the idea that it is possible for God to be wrong about future events.
• In both these scenarios, the taking in of knowledge is passive and the reaction is just that - a reaction. Neither the stock broker nor the coach have any form of sovereignty over future events or that which they are responding to. This presents the idea that God does nothing but merely react to the actions of His creation.

Herein is our dilemma: that God has a limited knowledge of future events, that it is possible for Him to be wrong, and that He is simply responding to all that occurs...all these are the traits of Open Theism.

Open Theism, of course, is the teaching that God does not have infallible knowledge of future events. However, it would be wrong to represent it as simply a helpless God worried about the next day, as if God is sitting in heaven biting His proverbial fingernails. Most Open Theists liken it to a master chess player playing against a novice: although he does not know for sure what will happen next and may have one or two surprises, God is still able to maneuver around the actions of creation and still come out on top. Their argument is that if God knows something will happen, and there is no possibility of it not happening, then that is merely an indirect form of determinism. To quote an Open Theist source:

However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists the "future" is not a present reality-it does not exist-and God knows reality as it is.

This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God's knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do. [source]

This more accurate definition sounds like the examples we looked at in the beginning of this post. Those who use these examples to try to teach a libertarian free will are inadvertently teaching Open Theism instead. They are presenting a God who has fallible knowledge of future events, no assurance of what will happen, and almost every action of God is merely a response to His creation. Both examples are therefore simply fallacious analogies to make.

Prima Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia

Does the belief in prima scriptura inevitably lead one to believe either in sola scriptura or sola ecclesia?

First, let's define some terms:

Prima Scriptura is the name given by many as a counter for sola scriptura. The idea is that while scripture is not the sole rule of faith in the church, it is the primary authority. It refers to the primacy of scripture, or that scripture is primary among traditions and ecclesiastical decisions, although those also carry some authority alongside scripture. This teaching stems from the idea that when the apostles founded the church, they left a conglomerate of teachings, both written and unwritten, and the written portion became scripture. Therefore, while there are traditions and extra-biblical beliefs, scripture is still held the highest among them. However, because it is believed that scripture, traditions and church authority all come from the same source (that is, Christ and the apostles), they all carry varying degrees of importance.

One perspective on this, from the Eastern Orthodox church, writes:

The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition. The Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition. To set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. [pg. 135-136. Carlton, Clark. The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church. Salisbury: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997.]

Sola Ecclesia is a nickname roughly translated as "church alone." It refers to a doctrine that teaches the church is the sole authority and rule of faith, and all is decided through the ecclesiastical body. One can see the more extreme and blatant versions of it in cults such as Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses, where the teachings of the group itself trump whatever scripture might have to say. So much so, in fact, that in some situations new scripture is added (as in Mormonism) or the very words of scripture are changed to suit the group's theology (as in the Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation).

Sola Scriptura is the Reformation-era name for the doctrine of "scripture alone." We must immediately point out here that the most common straw man presented of sola scriptura is of an Evangelical pastor beating his Bible and saying, "This is all you need!" This is not the case, however. Scripture alone does not mean scripture isolated or scripture by itself, which some scholars (such as Keith Mathison in his work The Spirit of Sola Scriptura) have referred to jestingly as "solo scriptura." Sola scriptura acknowledges the presence and permits the use of history, language, contextual study, patristics and scholars. However, what it does teach is that all of this is held to the standard of scripture and scripture alone. The writings of godly theologians, the decisions of councils, and traditions claimed to have been passed down through the ages - while not necessarily useless in and of themselves - do not get to trump the writings of scripture. God's word has the final say.

Now that we have established these terms, we return to our question: does prima scriptura inevitably lead one to follow sola scriptura or sola ecclesia? Long ago I made this chart to try to explain this further:

The line of thinking is this: you start out with the presupposition of Prima Scriptura. So far so good. Now let's say you bring in a tradition, doctrine or belief. Do we have a question regarding its validity? If no, there is nothing to worry about. Some things, such as the existence of a historical Christ or how many disciples there were, may not have any need to be questioned.

Let us say, however, that we have something worth asking a question about. We'll take, as an example, the teaching of the repose and later bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary (which I've touched on in greater detail here). The next question we must ask: is it able to be proven by scripture? In the case of the bodily assumption of Mary, the quick answer is no, it cannot be. The next question must be: is this an issue? If one answers No, for the church has spoken and thus it is so, then they are followers of sola ecclesia, for they are following church authority over scriptural authority. If they answer Yes, and so it cannot be part of our infallible rule of worship or faith, then they are following sola scriptura, for they are appealing to the authority of scripture.

Many might protest this example, because scripture is only silent about the bodily assumption of Mary and not exactly (though somewhat) contrary to it. Therefore, I will move on to another example: the celibacy of the clergy. In Roman Catholicism, priests and bishops are celibate in toto, whereas in Eastern Orthodoxy (and some other forms of Eastern Christianity) priests may be married provided they were married before ordination (after which they must be celibate) while all bishops must be celibate.

Now let us apply this same flow of thinking as before: is this mode of clerical celibacy affirmed by scripture? The answer, again, is no: Paul writes in Titus 1:5-6 that elders (or priests) can be married and have children; Paul likewise writes in 1 Timothy 3:2 that overseers (or bishops) can be married, and even says in verses 4-5 that one sign they are fit for their post is that their family household is in good order. He even records in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that James, Peter and other apostles, most of them considered to be bishops in "apostolic" churches, had wives. Now we must ask how we respond to this in light of the church tradition. If we say This is of no concern, the church has chosen in her prudence to instill this form of celibacy, then we are falling into sola ecclesia. If, however, we say This is of concern, for it contradicts the words of Paul, therefore this tradition must be thrown out, then we are following sola scriptura.

In both these situations, the tradition, belief or doctrine actually overrides the authority of scripture. Though many might protest this and assure us that the church is merely "interpreting" scripture, or that they are just enacting something in the prudence of time, the fact remains that the authority to change this is coming only from the church, and is bypassing the word of God. Even if one were to argue that the church is sourced to God as well, this only invites the problem of God contradicting Himself - first through the infallible words of scripture, then through the infallible council of the church. Infallible sources cannot be contradictory to one another.

This is why when one argues that elevating church authority or the authority of tradition does not negate the primary authority of scripture, they are merely not following this doctrine through to its logical conclusion. If in the end church authority has the final say, even in contradiction to the teachings of scripture, then who has the true authority? I write this not only with Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox in mind, but likewise Protestants and even groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. If your church believes something, and yet you can find nothing in scripture to verify it - in fact it contradicts scripture - and yet you defend it with The church declares it to be, therefore it must be so, how much weight are you then placing upon the scriptures? At this point it is revealed that your church's authority has the true power, and scripture is simply given a ceremonial nod. Note that I am not arguing for a kind of "ecclesiastical anarchy" here - church authority in and of itself is not bad. However, if we place authority upon the church that supersedes scripture and permits it to contradict scripture, then we have usurped the authority of God's word. It would be no different than permitting Congress the ability to contradict the Constitution for some superficial reason similar to "both Congress and the Constitution are sourced to the Founding Fathers."

I exhort any one reading this post to understand the importance of the authority of God's word. Christ Himself responded to all exhortations from the Pharisees, scribes, lawyers - even the devil himself - by going to the word of God. Evil was met every time with "it is written." As God said through the prophet Isaiah: "If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20). If you encounter anyone or any group which works against the word of God - whether intentional or unintentional - seek to correct them, or, if this proves impossible, depart from them, just as the apostle Paul warned the Roman Christians to turn away from those teaching doctrines contrary to the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:17). Paul was so adamant about preserving the word of God, in fact, that he stated even an apostle or angel of God could be considered anathema for preaching a contrary gospel (Gal 1:8-9). Scripture is our highest authority because it comes from God, and with God we can find no other higher authority.

I write this post not as an immediate call for repentance, but as a chance to ponder on these things. God bless.

Trent on Justification

Excerpts from the Council of Trent (1545-1563):

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema. [source; all emphasis mine]

Calvinists and Prayer

Question: If God has predestined all that will occur, then why bother to pray?

I recently saw this contention on another blog, and thought it would be worth touching upon for a moment. The basic idea is that if everything is predestined to happen, or God has arranged everything to happen, then what sense does it make for Calvinists to pray?

Firstly, I would bring forward that this contention is as erroneous as the contention that it's nonsensical for Calvinists to evangelize (see my post here). Just as we don't know who God's sheep are, yet we are called to deliver the gospel so that hearing they may believe (cf. Rom 10:14), so we do not know what God's will and design in our life is, hence we pray because we are called to do so as Christians.

We must recognize that, contrary to what many Word of Faith preachers teach, prayer does not put any obligation upon God to act. If God so desires, He may not even listen to prayer. An example is found in God's words to the prophet Isaiah: "when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen" (Isa 1:15). And again through the prophet Jeremiah: "do not pray for this people...for I will not listen when they call to Me" (Jer 11:14). We see God again refusing to answer a prayer when Elijah prays that God might take his life (1 Kings 19:4) and yet God does not. Likewise, God does not need prayer as permission to act, just as He graciously raises the sun and brings the rain for the wicked, though they may never pray for either (cf. Matt 5:45). God is able to act contrary to the absence of prayer, and the presence of prayer does not place upon God an obligation to act.

Secondly, I would like to present a situation in scripture where a clearly predestined event was prayed about:

And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." [Matt 26:39]

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." [Acts 4:27-28]

On the one hand, it was said by the apostles that the episode of our Lord's passion was predestined to happen; yet on the other hand, our Lord prayed that it would not happen. According to the opening contention, there was absolutely no point in this prayer. The argument at the beginning of this post could therefore well be used against our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are some responses people have tried to use against this, which I will address now:

1) Christ was not omniscient at the moment. This argument is simply nonsensical. Christ had hinted at or foretold His oncoming torture, crucifixion and death many times before (Matt 9:15, 10:38, 12:38-40, 16:21, 20:17-19). Likewise, Christ was well aware of what was about to happen, hence the words in His prayer: "let this cup pass." This cup refers to the passion, which could only be said if Christ was fully aware of what was about to happen. Christ could not have - save for a spell of madness - suddenly stopped being omniscient regarding His oncoming pain and death, especially when such knowledge was driving Him to prayer (this is established in verse 38).

2) "Predestined" doesn't mean it was set in stone to happen outside anyone's control. This is, however, a new definition of "predestined," and avoids some clear facts from the text itself:

a) The apostles had previously cited Psalm 2:1-2. They then identify this as a Messianic prophecy of what happened during the passion of our Lord. In other words, it was foretold to happen from ages past. God had decreed long ago that it should happen. The betrayal of the Messiah by His own people and His abuse and death at the hands of a foreign power were not mere chance - God had decreed long ago they would happen. To suggest there was a possibility it could not have happened is to suggest that it is possible for God to prophesy falsely.

b) The apostles clearly pray to God that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and Jews had done "whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." The active party in this predestination was God's hand and God's purpose - God was completely sovereign over the situation. This was not a matter of individual events working out in such a way that God just happened to come out on top, nor was this God reacting to a continuous series of sticky situations and managing to work things out - God was completely in charge, because He had ordained long ago that all this would happen, and intended to see it through. Pilate, Herod, Judas, the Sanhedrin and all the people may have believed they were acting independently, but so did the king of Assyria in regards to all his conquests, and he was rebuked by God with the question: "Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?" (Isa 10:15).

Thirdly, many people, even after all this, will still contend that it is illogical to believe some prayers don't come true because God does not to will it to happen. I respond that it is perfectly logical given what is established. We know that God is the only one who can answer prayers, and have affirmed that God is likewise under no obligation to fulfill the requests given through prayer. Therefore, the only thing that can possibly be dependent upon whether or not our prayers are fulfilled is the will of God. This is why our Lord prayed: "yet not as I will, but as You will." Everything else (our walk in our spiritual life, how we pray, how long we pray, etc.) is secondary.

If we deny the sovereignty of God's will in regards to prayer, we put the focus of prayer on ourselves rather than God. If we do this, then we turn God into a walking welfare check that is out to please our every whim. I would hope, God willing, that this kind of mindset is something even non-Calvinists would seek to avoid in regards to their thoughts on prayer.

The Fallacy of Contrary Presuppositions

Some time ago, I got in a brief conversation with someone on a friend's Facebook page. To make a long (and painful) story short, it was essentially a discussion on whether or not Christ taught national healthcare. I argued that all of Christ's acts of charity were directly tied to His deity and that acts of charity were done by choice and through the church as a body. The other person argued that Christ approved of actions done by a sympathetic government. I then asked him to provide scripture to back up his case (I had done so for my own). It was then that the conversation took a turn, and the man began to argue that you didn't have to cite scripture, and that in the end it didn't matter what anyone believed, since with religion everyone was right.

I bring this up as only one example wherein conflicting presuppositions are brought into play, though unknowingly by the person presenting them. These conflicting presuppositions often boil down to something similar to this scheme:

Presupposition A: We have no way of truly knowing what Jesus taught.

Presupposition B: Jesus was a great teacher of morality and ethics, and taught X, Y, and Z.

Presupposition A is often introduced with a series of doubtful statements. One example is: "We have no way of knowing what the original Bible says because of the textual variances." Another example is: "There were so many books in the early church that we don't know which ones really depict what Jesus said." Another might be: "The books about Jesus were written later, so they aren't an accurate depiction of what His teachings or actions were." In all these scenarios, doubt is cast upon the assurance of knowing who Christ was, what He did, and what He said.

Presupposition B is often introduced to promote various forms of the social gospel or "religionless" Christianity. It essentially takes the morality and ethics of Christ's teaching sans His deity, and promotes it as a code of works for society as a whole to live by. People may deny Christ's deity or any dependence upon faith in Him, but will assure the listener something along the lines of: "I believe Christ to be a good moral teacher." Or they might proceed to go into a series of such moral teachings (providing for the poor, helping the sick, etc.) which they believe Christ taught to His followers and the general world population to follow.

Note, however, the fallacy in this mindset: they assert that A and B are both true, yet B is entirely dependent upon A being false. In order for us to believe that Christ taught morals and ethics, we have to know what those morals and ethics were; in order for us to know what those morals and ethics were, we have to know what Christ said. Therefore, as stated before, in order for B to be true, then A must be false. If A is true, then B is false. A and B cannot coexist without a complete contradiction.

Initially, I was going to write this off as being selective about your sources with a circular reasoning - that is, you choose what you want to use because it promotes your case, and throw out what you don't want because it doesn't promote your case. However, I realized this is even worse than that: you're denying the validity of a source, then saying that same source proves your point. In the end you are simply left with a fallacious position due to its inherently contradictory nature.

The fact is, our main source of knowing Christ is from scripture. Scripture teaches us what Christ taught and did. We cannot pick and choose what we want to believe Christ said or did any more we could do so for other historical figures. And among what Christ said and did was confirmation of His deity and the power given Him by the Father to judge the souls of men. We can deny this in our hearts, but we cannot hide from it. I urge everyone who reads this post to consider these words, and to meditate on what Christ says in scripture, and to know that He has been sent to call men to repentance and to prepare them for that day when all men will be judged through Christ Jesus. God bless.

Meditations on being an "American Christian"

It's been two days since July 4, the day Americans celebrate the declaration of independence from the British crown. I've been American all my life - born in the States and raised mostly in the States (with a few years in Europe). I've always considered myself a "proud American" in the strictest sense of the term. I was raised a military brat with a father in the army, and we tended to always have an American flag flying outside our house. I understood that men sacrificed themselves for our country, and that their sacrifice was for a cause.

At the same time, my patriotism has been tempered somewhat ever since I came to Christ. Many times I've meditated on what it means to be both "American" and "Christian," and what those two loyalties entail.

America is not God's country. It is not a new Israel. There is no clear sign that it will be the place where God's Spirit will pour forth upon the earth. God is eternal, America is not. The new Israel is the church, upon which the Law of God's heart is written on flesh, not on stone, and the Spirit of God resides in the temple of its members, not a temple in any individual location. Though one may grant that far more of the Founding Fathers were Christian than popular history would have us believe, and while during the periods of the two Great Awakenings there were moments where a large percentage of Americans were Christian, America herself was never a "Christian nation." There is no such thing as a "Christian nation." A Christian nation would not have slaves. A Christian nation would not have segregation. The American government is not God-ordained - it is created by men and run by men.

Just as the literal nation of Israel proved to be temporary, so will America, someday, prove to be temporary. It was God's providence which brought America into being, and it could very well be God's providence that brings America's existence to an end. When Christ returns and men of all race and nation are knelt before Him, there will be no America, because there will be no Americans. There will only be brothers and sisters in Christ standing side-by-side before their King.

Likewise, while my taxes and status under law may belong to America, my heart and my soul belong to God. Where America turns her back upon God, I turn my back upon America. There are stories of Christian Roman soldiers who loyally served their emperor in uniform to the point where their emperor demanded worship. The soldiers refused, and were martyred. This should be the mindset of every Christian in every nation: give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's...but the minute Caesar demands what is God's, he should be flatly denied, even to the point of death. In the past Christians often faced life under such pagan governments, and let's face it...they still are.

I am an American Christian in the sense that I was born in America and have come to know Christ. I love my country and would not betray her for any secular reasons. Yet my love for the cross is far greater than my love for the flag, and if the flag were to ever try to replace the position of the cross, I would refuse to bow. They may be able to break my body, but only God can raise my body and soul into glorification. Soli Deo Gloria.

The Struggle Against Reality

This is from Monty Python's 1979 film Life of Brian. It's a little shocking how this scene is incredibly relevant to today's society.

Things NOT to say to a depressed Christian...

Just some meditations from my own personal experiences in the past few years...

"Keep the faith!"

Ugh. Never ever ever ever say this to a depressed Christian. This will drive them as nuts as "Chin up and smile!" will to a secular person. It just comes across as a platitude and a sign that you don't really care for them.

"God is in control!"

No, really? I thought He was on a lunch break! Trust me, many depressed Christians are well aware of God's sovereignty, or at least some forms of it. They're aware that God is in control - the problem is at the moment they feel like their life is not. They may feel a disconnect between the sovereignty of God and the circumstances in their life. It might be best, then, to try to show them a connection, or to try to show how God is still there in their life.

"Maybe you're not really saved."

I've never had anyone tell me this personally, but I've heard or read Christian counselors suggest this. All I can say is that we shouldn't judge the status of a person's salvation on the fact they're having a bad day or even a bad month. Christians are not meant to be superficially happy, and even the greatest theologians throughout history (Martin Luther, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, etc.) had bouts of depression throughout their lives, either continuously or at certain points.

The worst thing a person can do to someone who is depressed is to suggest they aren't really saved. Now not only is the person depressed regarding their life circumstances, but now they have to worry on whether or not their salvation is sincere.