Home » Posts tagged 'Jesus Christ' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: Jesus Christ

The Requirement of Censorship with the Separation of Church and State: The Truth of the Bible Requires Institutional Adherence

Recent Twitter Files reveal widespread and coordinated censorship there.  Where vile language acceptable, those speaking truth have lost their jobs.  Long before, state institutions censored the most important truths in human history without recrimination.

Before you continue, I offer you a guide.  This post will move outside of most people’s box.  I ask you not to delve into the establishment clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution.  Before you jump to practical ramifications, consider the truth of the post.

The Truth, the Logos

When you read Genesis 1 in the Bible, you are reading the account of the beginning of all time, space, and matter.  Everything originates with God out of nothing.  That is the explanation for everything.  It does not even exist without Him, but He also sustains it.

The Bible record is truth as well as is the truth.  Scripture presents itself as the truth.  Jesus, God the Son, said to His Father God in John 17:17, “Thy Word is truth.”  It might make you feel good and help your life, but that is just a byproduct of its truth.  It works because it is the truth.  The truth is one, because God is one.  Nothing in this record contradicts any other part.  God does not deny Himself.

God created man in His image and with His likeness.  He intended man to reflect Him in his nature.  Men should treat and look at the world in every aspect like God would.  They should follow what God says, the truth, for and about everything.  God expects men to view the world, see it, like He does.

Modernists speculate a fully naturalistic origination and continuation of all things.  They opine this as progress from the superstition of ignorance.  In fact, the premoderns had it right.  It never was a natural world.  The Greeks were right in their concept of cosmos, which they called logos, an intelligence that permeated all space and matter and in contrast to random and chaotic naturalism.

People in John’s day understood his Logos in John 1:1, who He said was Jesus Christ, was the source for this cohesion, intelligence, and order.  Paul wrote that in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3) and that by all things consisted (1:17).  That was the Logos.

No Bifurcation of Truth

Paul was also emphatic in the truth of Christ’s bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  Jesus showed Thomas the wounds in His hands.  He was one, whole Person.  A physical body was the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).  Both body and spirit glorified God.  This contradicted a pagan dualism, that separated truth into separate spheres of the spiritual and physical.

This New Testament presentation matches the Old Testament concept of truth, “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7).  Every aspect of knowledge falls under the purveyance of God’s truth.  Even though someone may divide the truth into various fields such as government, economics, math, and biology, it still is one cohesive, orderly truth proceeding from the one mind of one God.

Whatever field or region under the sovereignty of one truth splinters from the one, or whenever it does, it becomes distorted, superficial, meaningless, and subjective.  The greatest advancements today in philosophy and science come in what Stephen Meyer calls “the return to the God hypothesis.”  The universe is fine tuned.  A cell is irreducibly complex.  In philosophy, only God explains the existence of everything that exists.  It’s impossible for something that exists not to have a reason for its existence.

Separating the truth from government, art, music, and economics, leaves any one in chaos and moral relativism.  The gospel does not stand apart from all the truth of the Bible.  And the gospel itself cannot and should not be divided into separate components of different degrees of subjective value.  For instance, it is good for social reasons and perhaps psychological ones but not to reconcile to God and appease His holy wrath.

Religion the Truth, Equal with Facts

The state is good with religion as long it isn’t the truth.  If it becomes the truth, it is equal with facts, science, math, and engineering.  True religion cannot just stop with the true definitions of a man and of a woman.  Next it says you go to Hell if you reject Jesus Christ.  Even worse it limits your marijuana use.

Much of the philosophical conversation today revolves around what I here write.  One faction, even considered conservative now, bemoans the loss of Western Civilization and its advantages.  It is the water in which we swim, even if no longer Judeo-Christian ethics.

Classically liberal intellectuals warn readers and listeners.  They won’t like the disappearance of Christianity, hearkening Nietzche’s prophecy about the death of God in the 19th century.  However, if you remove the resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Christ, the consummation of all things in the future literal, physical reign of Jesus Christ, you eradicate all of Christianity.  It is a whole that cannot be separated into disjunctive parts.

Total Truth

For a long time Christians self-censored by backing away from total truth (the title of Nancy Pearcey’s book).  They stopped bringing the truth to all the subjects and every institution, all ordained by God.  The dismissal of one is the dismissal of all.

A moral statement is either true or false.  True moral statements come from the Word of God.  If Jesus did not rise from the dead, nothing else the Bible says is true.  Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 15.  You cannot chop the Bible up like that.  The moral values become meaningless without the truth of the history and the scientific declarations.

The table of nations in Genesis 10 is the truth.  The prophecies of Daniel 11 are the truth.  What scripture says all over about men and women is the truth.  These are not subjective and relativistic.  They are objective.  They are true.  All these writings should be taught everywhere as truth, not in religion class as an alternative along side the lies of other religions.

The separation of church and state, which is not in the United States Constitution, necessitates censorship.  Anything church related is only church related and stays in the church.  Only state stuff belongs in the state, which as many of you know, includes everything in the world, including biblical issues like marriage and parenting practices.  Then the state labels all of theirs science and facts and outside of the state, unless cooperating with the state, subjective, private, and even conspiracy.  If it is truth, it is your truth, subjective truth, which is fine as long as you keep it outside of institutions.

Take Moses into the Supreme Court Building

For awhile the state has been fine with a sculpture of Moses with the two tablets on the Supreme Court building.  It is a decoration.  It is a ritual.  Maybe it’s even an archetype into which you read whatever you want.  They cannot use it as grounds for decision making, even if its self-evident truths form the basis for logic, argument, and morality.

Perhaps a government and big business or oligarchical complex now joins in widespread censorship.  Let’s just say that complex does censor the citizenry of the United States and other Western countries.  Christians already censored themselves by segregating themselves away from God’s world and keeping the truth away from its institutions, whose very existence arises from that truth.

God requires more than talking about the truth at church.  He requires adherence to the truth in every institution.  This is the teaching of all nations.  True discipleship requires national adherence.  Churches at least should adhere, but their goals are further than that.  They want the knowledge and dominion of His truth everywhere.

The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 3

Part One     Part Two

Whatever came between two parties that was a barrier for reconciliation most often continues to be why they need a mediator.  Before they can reconcile, they must come together, but they cannot even come together without mediation either.  The two sides need a mediator before a conversation can or will occur that could lead to a restoration in the relationship.

A first party says the fault is on the other side.  The second party says the first party is the one at fault.  Both sides dig in or stiffen their backs.  They both at the same time say, “It’s not my fault!  He started it!”  Now they cannot even listen to each other.  It’s possible that emotion and personal grievance disallows either side from seeing their own fault.

I grew up playing chess, but not enough to be any good.  Even when I did, I played with a self-destructive myopia.  I was so focused on my own pieces and where I would move them, that I missed what the other player was doing.  I lacked perspective to see all that happened or was happening.

A mediator has an opportunity to see both sides and to call out either one.  All each can see is his own side of the board, to go with the chess analogy.  He does not see the big picture.  He does not see his own offenses, only the ones of the other party.  The other side is solely responsible for this break in relationship.

The Olive Branch

Real peace does not come through the threat of destruction or annihilation. It comes by offering what some people call the “olive branch.” The olive branch is a symbol that comes from the Bible, because the dove, which also symbolizes this peace, came back to Noah’s ark, signaling a future on earth for Noah and his family. Through the intermediary, the dove, God offered man an olive branch. Noah and his family offered God a sacrifice.

God had already offered man a way out, a way of salvation through the ark. Noah preached over a hundred years, warning man of his predicament. But man rejected reconciliation and the mediating work of Noah. Later in 1 Peter 3, Peter says that Jesus Himself preached through Noah to those people.

A mediator is an olive branch. The offer of an olive branch, a mediator, says, I want this relationship. I am even willing to sit under judgment, but it must be neutral, it must be just. When the mediator is rejected, that says, I do not want this relationship.

For my lifetime, I have always judged rejection of mediation as rejection of reconciliation. This is not in the nature of a good and loving God, who provided a mediator. It is the opposite of Him. Nothing characterizes God more than forgiveness and reconciliation. The opposite is also true.

Fear or Rejection of Mediation

I understand the fear of mediation. We like to be in control. We want a conversation to turn out like we want it to turn out. That might even seem right to us.  “We know the truth and everyone else should believe it like we do. Others just need to kowtow to us, because we have an ethic and method that surpasses others. The mediator would just mess things us. There is a risk that the mediator will say that I have been wrong. I know I’m not wrong.”

Both parties may think the other is proud, both pointing their fingers at the other’s pride.  Mediation is a tonic.  The proud reject the mediator.  He cannot submit to another authority than himself.

No doubt two sides must agree to a good mediator, a neutral arbitrator. True mediators are out there. This is the classic Elijah statement of 7,000 not bowing the knee to Baal. Not every possible mediator has yet bowed the knee to Baal. Some possible mediators have departed from the faith, but not everyone.

Mediation within the church should stay in the church. This is 1 Corinthians 6. When the two parties reside in different churches, however, then a third party comes in. True mediation, just and fair mediation, is very unlikely when the mediator comes from one of the sides.  Mediation requires neutrality.  No one should hand pick a mediator for his bias.

In my past, I have agreed to mediation from the other side. I just wanted a mediator. A hand picked mediator by only one side is not a good way to go, definitely not the best, but in my opinion it was better than nothing.

The Peacemaker

For my salvation, I trust Jesus Christ. I trust my advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. For earth, I trust someone who I do believe loves both sides. He will obey the truth. I would want him to know the Bible. Use it. He should be strong enough to stand up to either side, unlike the debate moderator I talked about earlier.

Reconciliation, mediation, forgiveness, and restoration are greater than the grievances, the felt personal wrongs. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph 4:26). Jesus said, Turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39). Someone turned the other cheek after someone had slapped him. Cheek slapping produced a personal grievance. With mediation, a neutral arbitrator, two people can trade in their grievances for restoration.

The peace of reconciliation contradicts anger.  Peace relates to at least two truths.  One, peace erases the barrier.  Two, peace is an effect of calm or tranquility.  Anger keeps from peace and peace solves the anger.

As you read this, I hope you consider or reconsider mediation of a relationship for the purpose of reconciliation. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Like all the other beatitudes, this is strong language. Children of God want a peacemaker. It characterizes them to want it. A tougher question is, what is a person who does not want a peacemaker? Peacemaking in the Bible means a mediator most of the time. May we consider or reconsider once again by the grace of God.

More to Come

Charles Spurgeon: My Conversion Testimony

Have you ever read the conversion testimony of the famous Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon?

Charles Spurgeon conversion testimony

It is a blessing to read.  Here it is:

 

I sometimes think I might have been in darkness and despair until now had it not been for the goodness of God in sending a snowstorm, one Sunday morning, while I was going to a certain place of worship. When I could go no further, I turned down a side street, and came to a little Primitive Methodist Chapel. In that chapel there may have been a dozen or fifteen people. I had heard of the Primitive Methodists, how they sang so loudly that they made people’s heads ache; but that did not matter to me. I wanted to know how I might be saved, and if they could tell me that, I did not care how much they made my head ache. The minister did not come that morning; he was snowed up, I suppose. At last, a very thin-looking man, a shoemaker, of tailor, or something of that sort, went up into the pulpit to preach. Now, it is well that preachers should be instructed; but this man was really stupid. He was obliged to stick to his text, for the simple reason that he had little else to say. The text was,—

“Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” [Isaiah 45:22]

He did not even pronounce the words rightly, but that did not matter. There was, I thought, a glimpse of hope for me in that text. The preacher began thus:—“My dear friends, this is a very simple text indeed. It says, ‘Look’. Now lookin’ don’t take a deal of pains. It ain’t liftin’ your foot or your finger; it is just, ‘Look.’ Well, a man needn’t go to College to learn to look. You may be the biggest fool, and yet you can look. A man needn’t be worth a thousand a year to be able to look. Anyone can look; even a child can look. But then the text says, ‘Look unto Me.’ Ay!” said he, in broad Essex, “many on ye are lookin’ to yourselves, but it’s no use lookin’ there. You’ll never find any comfort in yourselves. Some look to God the Father. No, look to Him by-and-by. Jesus Christ says, ‘Look unto Me’. Some on ye say, ‘We must wait for the Spirit’s workin’.’ You have no business with that just now. Look to Christ. The text says. ‘Look unto Me.’ ”

Then the good man followed up his text in this way:—“Look unto Me; I am sweatin’ great drops of blood. Look unto Me; I am hangin’ on the cross. Look unto Me; I am dead and buried. Look unto Me; I rise again. Look unto Me; I ascend to Heaven. Look unto Me; I am sittin’ at the Father’s right hand. O poor sinner, look unto Me! look unto Me!”

When he had gone to about that length, and managed to spin out ten minutes or so, he was at the end of his tether. Then he looked at me under the gallery, and I daresay, with so few present, he knew me to be a stranger. Just fixing his eyes on me, as if he knew all my heart, he said, “Young man, you look very miserable.” Well, I did; but I had not been accustomed to have remarks made from the pulpit on my personal appearance before. However, it was a good blow, struck right home. He continued, “and you always will be miserable—miserable in life, and miserable in death,—if you don’t obey my text; but if you obey now, this moment, you will be saved.” Then, lifting up his hands, he shouted, as only a Primitive Methodist could do, “Young man, look to Jesus Christ. Look! Look! Look! You have nothin’ to do but to look and live.” I saw at once the way of salvation. I know not what else he said,—I did not take much notice of it,—I was so possessed with that one thought. Like as when the brazen serpent was lifted up, the people only looked and were healed, so it was with me. I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, “Look!” what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away. There and then the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun; and I could have risen that instant, and sung with the most enthusiastic of them, of the precious blood of Christ, and the simple faith which looks alone to Him. Oh, that somebody had told me this before, “Trust Christ, and you shall be saved.” Yet it was, no doubt, all wisely ordered, and now I can say,—

“E’er since by faith I saw the stream

Thy flowing wounds supply,

Redeeming love has been my theme,

And shall be till I die.”

 

I do from my soul confess that I never was satisfied till I came to Christ; when I was yet a child, I had far more wretchedness than ever I have now; I will even add, more weariness, more care, more heart-ache, than I know at this day. I may be singular in this confession, but I make it, and know it to be the truth. Since that dear hour when my soul cast itself on Jesus, I have found solid joy and peace; but before that, all those supposed gaieties of early youth, all the imagined ease and joy of boyhood, were but vanity and vexation of spirit to me. That happy day, when I found the Saviour, and learned to cling to His dear feet, was a day never to be forgotten by me. An obscure child, unknown, unheard of, I listened to the Word of God; and that precious text led me to the cross of Christ. I can testify that the joy of that day was utterly indescribable. I could have leaped, I could have danced; there was no expression, however fanatical, which would have been out of keeping with the joy of my spirit at that hour. Many days of Christian experience have passed since then, but there has never been one which has had the full exhilaration, the sparkling delight which that first day had. I thought I could have sprung from the seat on which I sat, and have called out with the wildest of those Methodist brethren who were present, “I am forgiven! I am forgiven! A monument of grace! A sinner saved by blood!” My spirit saw its chains broken to pieces, I felt that I was an emancipated soul, an heir of Heaven, a forgiven one, accepted in Christ Jesus, plucked out of the miry clay and out of the horrible pit, with my feet set upon a rock, and my goings established. I thought I could dance all the way home. I could understand what John Bunyan meant, when he declared he wanted to tell the crows on the ploughed land all about his conversion. He was too full to hold, he felt he must tell somebody. (C. H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, by His Wife and His Private Secretary, 1834–1854, vol. 1 [Cincinatti; Chicago; St. Louis: Curts & Jennings, 1898], 105–108.

 

Note that Spurgeon was not told to come to the front of a church building and repeat a sinner’s prayer, or told to ask Christ to come into his heart–those methodologies did not yet exist, as Dr. Paul Chitwood demonstrates in his history of the sinner’s prayer.  Spurgeon was directed to embrace Christ directly by repentant faith–the right thing sinners should be counseled to do today, and which, enabled by the Holy Spirit through the power of Scripture, will lead to multitudes of true conversions.

 

Note as well that in Isaiah 45:22 the word translated “Look” commonly means “turn.” One turns from his sin to look to Christ alone for salvation–repentance is implicit in saving faith.

 

Spurgeon directed people to embrace Christ directly by faith, rather than telling them that if they sincerely repeated the words of a prayer they would be saved, throughout his ministry.  Here are some examples of the evangelistic counsel he gave to seeking sinners, from his book Around the Wicket Gate (cited from here):

 

When the Lord lifts His dear Son before a sinner, that sinner should take Him without hesitation. If you take Him, you have Him, and none can take Him from you. Out with your hand, man, and take Him at once! When inquirers accept the Bible as literally true and see that Jesus is really given to all who trust Him, all the difficulty about understanding the way of salvation vanishes like the morning’s frost at the rising of the sun.

Two inquiring ones came to me in my vestry. They had been hearing the Gospel from me for only a short time, but they had been deeply impressed by it. They expressed their regret that they were about to move far away, but they added their gratitude that they had heard me at all. I was cheered by their kind thanks, but felt anxious that a more effectual work should be brought about in them. Therefore I asked them, “Have you indeed believed in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you saved?” One of them replied, “I have been trying hard to believe.” This statement I have often heard, but I will never let it go by me unchallenged. “No,” I said, “that will not do. Did you ever tell your father that you tried to believe him?” After I had dwelt a while upon the matter, they admitted that such language would have been an insult to their father.

I then set the Gospel very plainly before them in as simple language as I could, and begged them to believe Jesus, who is more worthy of faith than the best of fathers. One of them replied, “I cannot realize it: I cannot realize that I am saved.” Then I went on to say, “God bears testimony to His Son, that whosoever trusts in His Son is saved. Will you make Him a liar now, or will you believe His Word?” While I thus spoke, one of them started as if astonished. She startled us all as she cried, “O sir, I see it all; I am saved! Bless Jesus. He has shown me the way, and He has saved me! I see it all.” The esteemed sister who had brought these young friends to me knelt down with them while, with all our hearts, we blessed and magnified the Lord for a soul brought into light. One of the two sisters, however, could not see the Gospel as the other had, though I feel sure she will do so soon.

Did it not seem strange that, both hearing the same words, one should remain in the gloom? The change which comes over the heart when the understanding grasps the Gospel is often reflected in the face and shines like the light of heaven. Such newly enlightened souls often exclaim, “It is so plain; why is it I have not seen it before this? I understand all I have read in the Bible now, though I could not make it out before. It has all come in a minute, and now I see what I never understood before.”

The fact is, the truth was always plain, but they were looking for signs and wonders, and therefore did not see what was there for them. Old men often look for their spectacles when they are on their foreheads. It is commonly observed that we fail to see that which is straight before us. Christ Jesus is before our faces. We have only to look to Him and live, but we make all manner of bewilderment of it, and so manufacture a maze out of that which is straight as an arrow.

The little incident about the two sisters reminds me of another. A much-esteemed friend came to me one Sunday morning after service to shake hands with me. She said, “I was fifty years old on the same day as yourself. I am like you in that one thing, sir, but I am the very reverse of you in better things.” I remarked, “Then you must be a very good woman, for in many things I wish I also could be the reverse of what I am.” “No, no,” she said, “I did not mean anything of that sort. I am not right at all.” “What!” I cried, “Are you not a believer in the Lord Jesus?” “Well,” she said, with much emotion, “I, I will try to be.” I laid hold of her hand and said, “My dear soul, you are not going to tell me that you will try to believe my Lord Jesus! I cannot have such talk from you. It means blank unbelief. What has He done that you should talk of Him in that way? Would you tell me that you would try to believe me? I know that you would not treat me so rudely. You think me a true man, and so you believe me at once. Surely you cannot do less with my Lord Jesus.”

Then with tears she exclaimed, “Oh, sir, do pray for me!” To this I replied, “I do not feel that I can do anything of the kind. What can I ask the Lord Jesus to do for one who will not trust Him? I see nothing to pray about. If you will believe Him, you shall be saved. If you will not believe Him, I cannot ask Him to invent a new way to gratify your unbelief.” Then she said again, “I will try to believe.” But I told her solemnly I would have none of her trying; for the message from the Lord did not mention trying, but said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). I pressed upon her the great truth, that “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:36); and its terrible reverse: “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

I urged her to full faith in the once crucified but now ascended Lord, and the Holy Spirit there and then enabled her to trust. She most tenderly said, “Oh sir, I have been looking to my feelings, and this has been my mistake! Now I trust my soul with Jesus, and I am saved.” She found immediate peace through believing. There is no other way.

 

There are numbers of resources that can help churches follow the Biblical evangelistic methodology of Spurgeon today, rather than the corrupt “1-2-3, pray after me, 4-5-6, hope it sticks” salesmanship of  people like Jack Hyles. May the number of Baptist churches who counsel the lost Biblically increase greatly for God’s glory and for the multiplication of true conversions.

 

TDR

“They Will Reverence My Son”

In a story told by the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, He said in Mark 12:6:

Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

In the story, obviously this son is a representation of Jesus Christ Himself and so communicates the purpose of God the Father sending His Son to the earth:  “They will reverence my son.”  They don’t reverence the son in the story and this is why they deserve punishment.  Jesus says in verse 9:

What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

The “lord of the vineyard” in the story represents God the Father.  I understand this to be a message to Israel, but it is one to anyone does not respond to the God the Son with reverence.  Should not all of us assume “reverence” is a necessary aspect of saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?
.The Greek word translated “reverence,” a verb, is entrepo, which according to BDAG means “to show deference to a person in recognition of special status,” including with that the following references:  Mattthew 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 18:2, 4, 20:13,m and Hebrews 12:9.  BDAG provides another translation of the word in other contexts, which means “to cause to turn (in shame), to shame.”  Examples given are 1 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and Titus 2:8.
In the story Jesus told, the husbandmen should have been ashamed of themselves for what they did to the representatives of the lord, whom we know represent the Old Testament prophets.  Feeling shame can be a part of this reverence unto the Son.  Not reverencing the Son is not reverencing the Father.  This is how someone could take believing in God.  If someone does not believe in the Son, He does not believe in God.
How can someone reverence if there isn’t such a thing as reverence or no way to reverence?  Going along with the BDAG meaning “recognition of special status.”  How does someone recognize someone for having special status?  Is there a way to do that?  Is there a way not to do that?  A culture where nothing is sacred anymore won’t know how to reverence anything, let alone God.  This, of course, completely messes up its people’s values, because they won’t know how or whom to give special status.
Churches today very often do not reverence the Son with their music.  Their music isn’t sacred.  It is worldly, fleshly, and lustful.  The husbandmen thought the lord, the vineyard, the representatives in the story, and the Son were all about themselves.  Because of how important they thought they were, they couldn’t reverence the Son.
This reverence of the Son relates to repentance.  It relates to true faith in Jesus Christ.  When churches won’t reverence the Son, they are also undermining the gospel.  People cannot imagine or know the true Son of God, when churches do not treat Him with reverence.

The Regular History of Clever New Interpretations, Teachings, or Takes on and from Scripture: Socinianism

One way to get a Nobel prize in something, you’ve got to break some new ground or discover something no one has ever seen.  In the world, the making of a printing press or light bulb changes everything.  People still try to invent a better mousetrap.  It happens.  The phone replaced the telegraph and now our mobile devices, the phone.

Everyone can learn something new from scripture.  You might even change or tweak a doctrine you’ve always believed.   On the whole, you don’t want to teach from the Bible what no one has ever heard before.  The goal is the original intent and understanding of the Author.

From the left comes progressivism.  The U. S. Constitution, just over two hundred years old, means something different than when it was written.  Loosely constructed, it has a flexible interpretation into which new meanings arise.  Hegelian dialectics say a new thesis comes from synthesis of antithesis and a former thesis.  Everything can be improved.

Early after the inspiration and then propagation of the Bible, men found new things no one ever saw in scripture.  Many of these “finds” started a new movement.  People have their fathers, the father of this or that teaching, contradictory to the other, causing division and new factions and denominations.  Some of these changes become quite significant, a majority supplanting the constituents of the original teaching.

At the time of the Reformation, it was as if the world first found sole fide and sole scriptura.  Men often call justification the Reformation doctrine of justification.  This opened a large, proverbial can of worms.  Many could read their own Bible in their own language.  Others now dug into their own copy of the original languages of scripture.  Skepticism grew.  “If we didn’t know this before, what else did they not tell us?”  It became a time ripe for religious shysters and this practice hasn’t stopped since then.

Socinus

The Italian, Laelius Socinus, was born in 1525 into a distinguished family of lawyers.  Early his attention turned from law to scripture research.  He doubted the teachings of Roman Catholicism.  Socinus moved in 1548 to Zurich to study Greek and Hebrew.  He still questioned established doctrine and challenged the Reformers.  Laelius wrote his own confession of faith, which introduced different, conflicting beliefs.  They took hold of his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born in 1539.

Faustus rejected orthodox Roman Catholic doctrines.  The Inquisition denounced him in 1559, so he fled to Zurich in 1562.  There he acquired his uncle’s writings.  His doubt of Catholicism turned anti-Trinitarian.  The Reformation did not go far enough for Socinus.  His first published work in 1562 on the prologue of John rejected the essential deity of Jesus Christ.

Socinus’s journeys ended in Poland, where he became leader of the Minor Reformed Church, the Polish Brethren.  His writings in the form of the Racovian Catechism survived through the press of the Racovian Academy of Rakow, Poland.  His beliefs took the name, Socinianism, now also a catch-all for any type of dissenting doctrine.

Socinianism held that Jesus did not exist until his physical conception.  God adopted Him as Son at His conception and became Son of God when the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary, a Gnostic view called “adoptionism.”  It rejected the doctrine of original sin.

Socianism denied the omniscience of God.  It introduced the first well developed concept of “open theism,” which said that man couldn’t have free will under a traditional (and scriptural) understanding of omniscience.

Socinianism also taught the moral example theory of atonement, teaching that Jesus sacrificed himself to motivate people to repent and believe.  His death gave men the ability to be saved by their own works, who weren’t sinners by nature anyway.

Unitarians

The work of Socinus lived on in the belief of early English Unitarians, Henry Hedworth and John Biddle.  Socinian belief was helped along also by its position of conscientious objection, a practice of refusing to perform military service.  This principle was very popular with many and made Socinianism much more attractive to potential adherents.  The First Unitarian Church, which followed Socianism as passed down through its leaders in England, was started in 1774 on Essex Street in London, where British Unitarian headquarters are still today.

As the Puritans of colonial America apostatized through various means, Unitarianism, a modern iteration of Socinianism took hold in the Congregational Church in America.  After 1820, Congregationalists took Unitarianism as their established doctrine.  The doctrine of Christ diminished to Jesus a good man and perhaps a prophet of God and in a sense the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Spirit of Skepticism

I write as an example of the diversity in the history of Christian doctrine and why it takes place.  When you read the beliefs of Socinians, you easily see them in modern liberal Christianity.  They influence on religious cults that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

A limited amount of skepticism wards away the acceptance of false doctrine.  Better is a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11), searching the scripture to see if these things are so, and what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.

As I grew up among fundamentalists and independent Baptists, I witnessed regular desire to find something new in the Bible.  Many sermons espoused interpretations I had never heard and didn’t see in the text.  A preacher often said, “God gave it to me.”  You should know God used the man because no one had seen such insights into scripture.

The same spirit of doctrinal novelty continues today in many evangelical churches.  The same practice led Joseph Smith in his founding of Mormonism.  Many cults arose in 19th century America under the same spirit of skepticism of established historical doctrines.

The Temptation of Novel Teaching

The temptation of novel teaching preys on anyone.  Faustus Socinus accepted many orthodox doctrines of his day. He rejected Christ as fully God and fully human because it was contrary to sound reason (ratio sana).  This steered Socinians toward Enlightenment thinking, where human reason took the highest role as arbiter of truth.

Warren Wiersbe wrote that H.A. Ironside, longtime pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, said, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.”  Elsewhere I read that Spurgeon first said that.  I don’t know.  Clever new interpretations, teachings, and takes on and from scripture corrupt and overturn scriptural, saving doctrines in the hearts of men.  They condemn them through all eternity.

The Gnostic History of Images of Jesus Christ

Images of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not be made for the reasons explained in the appropriate articles in the studies on ecclesiology here.  But did you know that the Gnostics were the first ones to makes images of the Savior? Note the following:

The Gnostics, in their enmity to God the Father, had proscribed his image, but being favourable to the Son, they painted and sculptured the figure of the Saviour, of all dimensions, and under various forms. It … appears … that we are indebted to Gnostics for the earliest portraits of Jesus. “It was for the use of Gnostics, and by the hand of those sectaries, who attempted at various times, and by a thousand different schemes, to effect a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christianity with Pagan superstitions, that little images of Christ were first fabricated; the original model of these figures they traced back to Pontius Pilate himself, by a hypothetical train of reasoning, which could scarcely deceive even the most ignorant of their initiated disciples. These little statues were made of gold, or silver, or some other substance, and after the pattern of those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of antiquity, which those sectarians were accustomed to exhibit, crowned with flowers in their Conciliabula, and all of which were honoured with the same degree of worship. Such, indeed, is the positive assertion of St. Iræneus,* confirmed, or at least reiterated by St. Epiphanius. This superstition, which on the same principle permitted painted images of Christ, was peculiarly in vogue amongst the Gnostics of the sects of Carpocrates; and history has preserved the name of a woman, Marcellina, adopted by that sect, for the propagation of which she removed from the farthest East, to Rome; and who in the little Gnostic church, as it may be called, which was under her direction, exposed to the adoration of her followers images of Christ and of St. Paul, of Homer and Pythagoras. This fact, which is supported by the serious evidence of St. Augustine, is, besides, perfectly in accordance with the celebrated anecdote of the Emperor, Alexander Severus, who placed amongst his Lares, between the images of the most revered philosophers and kings, the portraits of Christ, and of Abraham, opposite those of Orpheus and Apollonius of Tyana, and who paid to all a vague kind of divine worship.§ It cannot, therefore, be doubted, that this strange association originated in the bosom of certain schools of the Neo-Platonists, as well as in several Gnostic sects, and we may thence infer, that the existence of images fabricated by Gnostic hands, induced Christians, as soon as the Church relaxed in its primitive aversion to monuments of idolatry, to adopt them for their own use.*[1]

* St. Irenæus, Advers. Hæres. lib. i., cap. xxv., a. 6, édition de Massuet.

St. Epiphanius, Hæres. cap. xxvii., a. 6. See on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, “de Origine imaginum Christi Domini in Ecclesia Christiana,” s. 10, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iii., 394–396.

St. Augustin, de Hæresib. cap. vii.: “Sectæ ipsius (Carpocratis) fuisse traditur socia quædam Marcellina, quæ colebat imagines Jesu et Pauli, et Homeri et Pythagoræ, adorando incensumque ponendo.” (See the dissertation of Fueldner, upon the Carpocratians, in the Dritte Denkschrift der Hist. Theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig., p. 267, et seq.)

  • Æl. Lamprid. in Alexandr. Sever. cap. xxix. “In larario suo, in quo et divos principes, sed optimos (et) electos et animas sanctiores, in queis et Appollonium, et quantum scriptor suorum temporum dicit. Christum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujusmodi ceteros, habebat ac majorum effigies, rem divinam faciebat.” Such is the lesson proposed by Heyne for the employment of this text. (See the dissertation of Alexandr. Sever. Imp. religion. miscell. probant., &c., in his Opuscul. Academ. vol. vi., p. 169–281; see also on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, De Alexandra Severo, Imperatore Romano, Christianorum sacris per Gnostico initiato, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iv., p. 38–79.

* Such, we are told by M. Raoul Rochette, is the inference drawn by the pious and learned Bottari, from the testimony quoted above, Pitture e Sculture Sacre, vol i., p. 196; and that his opinion, formed in the bosom of orthodox Catholicism, has been adopted by all Roman antiquaries.

[1] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Christian Iconography; Or, the History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, trans. E. J. Millington and Margaret Stokes, vol. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886), 243–245.

So if you use images of Jesus Christ to (mis)represent Him in curricula for children’s ministries, or around the 25th of December you make a little image of Jesus and put it in a stable, you are not only violating the Second Commandment by engaging in a form of (likely unintentional) idolatry, but you are following the ancient Gnostics.

Maybe it is time to immediately stop making, using, condoning, promoting, or contributing in any way to the use of images of the Son of God.

TDR

The Gospel (The Good News of Salvation, Because We Need to Be Saved and God Can and Wants to Save Us)

 

This afternoon I was able to go door-to-door with a young man, who was just saved here, and this was his first time. Three of the conversations were with young mothers, who were not sure they were saved. They were all legitimate, decent conversations, all headed in the right direction toward preaching the gospel, but they had young children keeping them from standing there to hear the gospel. However, in each case I asked them if I could have their email addresses so I could send them the link to this presentation of the gospel. They all three agreed. I came home late in the afternoon and I immediately sent those emails with that link. They could watch the gospel at home. I was very happy about that.
One thing we’re doing is printing a postcard for our new church plant that has the link on it to the gospel presentation, inviting people to go by that address and watch it. It’s also on our website: https://www.jacksoncountybaptistchurch.com .

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives