The most basic test of leadership: Turn around and see if anyone is following you."
-John Maxwell
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Show & Tell
art blog(derogatory)
Three Goblin Art
NASA

shark vs the universe
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Xuebing Du
Cosimo Galluzzi

★
Claire Keane
Peter Solarz
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
occasionally subtle
Today's Document

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
taylor price

blake kathryn

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Belarus

seen from France

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from China

seen from Indonesia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Canada

seen from Japan

seen from Australia
seen from Switzerland

seen from Malaysia
seen from Venezuela
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela

seen from United States
seen from United States
@jonhearing-blog
The most basic test of leadership: Turn around and see if anyone is following you."
-John Maxwell
Former Facts Friday: Pondering Church History “The Eastern Orthodox Church, Part One”
The Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations, believes itself to be the “true church,” to have been founded by Paul and the other apostles in the New testament. They were the first major group to have broken off or schismed from Roman Catholicism and survived (although THEY would claim that the Roman Catholic Church broke off from THEM, since they are the “true church”). The official schism in the history books is dated in the year 1054, although some would push it later to the sacking of Constantinople and some would consider it much earlier. While the official split did happen in 1054, there was division between the Eastern and Western halves of Christianity from the time of Constantine onward.
They battled together against the Arians and celebrated together with the conclusion of the Council in Constantinople that effectively snubbed out the Arian Controversy (an argument of the translation of one word: should it be “same substance” or “like substance”?) “Same substance” won as those in attendance decided that the scriptures clearly attest to the fact that Jesus was the same substance as the Father.
This raised the mind-boggling question of “What is Jesus?” How can he be 100% man and 100% God? How does that work? And what does it look like? This is difficult to think through. We take this for granted every day in our churches because we accept it at face value, never taking the time to critically think through this incredible concept.
The School of Alexandria wanted to protect the full deity of Christ. Was the Son subject to human experiences such as hunger, grief, pain, and suffering? They had a difficult time accepting that God could suffer. After they had accepted that Christ was fully God, many struggled to think that he was also fully human. Many argued that he was not. Fully God – yes, but fully human –no.
The School of Antioch wanted to protect the full humanity of Christ. If he wasn’t fully human, he couldn’t really effectively pay for our sins! These people often taught that Jesus had two natures without mixture (He could be one or the other at his choosing but not both at the same time). They tried to explain two distinct natures loosely connected by a body – Son of Man, Son of God.
The Council of Chalcedon settled the matter in 451, stating that Jesus Christ was in fact 100% man and 100% God and that this is not contradictory; it does not diminish or alter the unalterable traits of the holy and perfect God. Also, following this Council, the emperor at the time created legislation stating that anyone in the future who claims to be Christian must confess and hold to the Creeds/decisions of the Councils of Nicene, Constantinople, and Chalcedon.
Christians in the East struggled with some of the decisions of this Council. For one thing, many in the East had a liking to the famous theologian Origen, who had many of his theologies declared heretical at this council. Eastern Christians had a love/hate relationship with Origen for centuries. Despite the condemnation of anything Origenian, his theological thinking remained central in the East. Post-Chalcedonian Eastern Christianity took a sharp turn away from its counterpart in the West. They began using unique spiritual terminology (i.e. divination), they focused heavily on the doctrine of God concerning his immutability (pulling away from the human element of Christ), and they quickly became obsessed with Tradition.
Two great controversies and three great theologians helped make the Eastern Orthodox Church what it is, especially making it distinct from the Western Roman Catholic Church. First was the Monothelite Controversy – a controversy over the idea of free will. Second was the Iconoclast Controversy – over the use of icons in the church. The three great men of Eastern Orthodoxy were John Chrysostom, the preacher, known as Goldenmouth for his great preaching, Maximus the Confessor, the martyr who died for his commitment to monothelite theology, and John of Damascus, the theologian, the man sometimes held singularly responsible for compiling and organizing Eastern “thought” and making it “theology.” These events and figures were all critical in the development of Eastern distinction.
Perhaps most important about Eastern Orthodox theology is that it would never be divorced from their liturgies in worship. They claim theology is an “outgrowth” of their worship. The liturgy is both the source and an expression of theology. They consider the worship in the church the major aspect of Tradition. They claim that Scripture is also part of tradition but it is secondary. Tradition governs the entire church and it governs individual Christian lives, and even scripture.
In Protestant Christianity, “tradition” is determined by or based on scripture. Scripture has authority, and tradition grows out of the Word. The Eastern Orthodox Church sees this to be backwards, however. They claim instead that tradition was in place before the New Testament was written, and thus scripture (the NT) came out of and depended on tradition! Tradition, then, led still by the Holy Spirit, is of utmost importance to Eastern Orthodoxy. And so they hold to the Bible, but they also hold many other texts in as high a regard as scripture. Like the Roman Catholic Church, their Scriptures have about 20 additional books. But they also hold 100s of early church father writings in incredibly high esteem, because they, like Scripture, were an outpouring of the Tradition that was in place.
Let’s think about these ideas of tradition and authority. When a troubling question comes up and we need an answer, where do we turn? How do we solve the world’s problems? How do we know who Christ is and what he did? How should we live our lives today? Where do we turn? Where do we place authority? A protestant would likely answer that Scripture alone has these answers. A good Roman Catholic will look both to the Magesterium and to Scripture for the answers. The Pope is just as likely to speak truth as God’s Word. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, will look first to their worship and liturgy and then to Scripture.
More of the theology and Tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy will be considered next week!
Theological Thursday: Interpreting the Bible “The Attributes of God, Part Three”
Read Part One: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6597322709/theological-thursday-interpreting-the-bible-the
Read Part Two: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6839983997/theological-thursday-interpreting-the-bible-the
We will never fully know or comprehend God in this lifetime. Nonetheless, if we are going to serve God or believe in God for salvation, we should make every effort to know everything about him that we can. Here are several more of what we call the attributes of God.
Goodness: “The goodness of God means that God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval.” As far as we humans are concerned, God’s being and actions are perfectly worthy of his own approval and therefore he is the final standard of “good.” We cannot understand what “good” means apart from God, because he is the standard. That is why Jesus said in Luke 18:19 “No one is good but God alone.” Thankfully, God had given us quite a bit of reflection in his Word about what is good – Genesis 1:31 as one example.
Love: “God’s love means that God eternally gives of himself to others.” 1 John 4:8 tells us that “God is love.” God’s love-relationship to mankind is one of great giving and sacrifice. 1 John 4:10 says “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Romans 5:8 says that “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” And John 3:16 also says that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whomever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Love is a sacrifice of self, and God calls us to love in this same way, in reciprocation to him and in our relationships with others.
Holiness: “God’s holiness means that he is separated from sin and devoted to seeking his own honor.” That is fairly straightforward and again, God’s holiness provides the pattern for his people to imitate. He commands us, “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2). God is and will always be the Most Holy One and the Holy of Holies.
Peace: “God’s peace means that in God’s being and in his actions he is separate from all confusion and disorder.” Although peace is not typically considered an attribute of God, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 14:33, “God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” There is a sense of harmony being emphasized here. The universe is not randomized but rather God is in control. The story of history, though it may seem confused and disordered, is actually being ordered by God. All things are working together for good for the sake of God’s people.
Righteousness: “God’s righteousness means that God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right.” In both the Old Testament and the New Testament the word for righteousness can be translated as righteousness or as justice – the two were synonymous in those languages. In Genesis 18:25, Abraham states, “Shall not the Judge of the Earth do right?” And again we must consider that God and only God sets the standard for what is “right.” Apart from him and his word, we cannot know right from wrong. He is the standard of righteousness.
Jealousy: “God’s jealousy means that God continually seeks to protect his own honor.” Though we often use the idea of jealousy in a negative sense, it does not always have to be so. God says of himself in Exodus 20:5, “I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” Paul also uses the word in 2 Corinthians 11:2, saying “I feel a divine jealousy for you (the Corinthians).” In both cases, the term for jealousy has a protective or watchful air to it. When describing God as a jealous god, it does not come with the prideful notion that we feel as human beings, because we truly don’t deserve any honor, while God deserves ALL the honor.
Wrath: “God’s wrath means that he intensely hates all sin.” The idea of God being wrathful is offensive and even repulsive to some. But doesn’t it make sense that if God loves all that is right and good, based on his own moral character, then he would likewise hate all things opposed to his moral character? Therefore God’s wrath towards sin and sinners is closely related to his holiness and his righteous justice. God’s wrath is described throughout the Bible and most shockingly in the revelation that Jesus Christ bore the wrath of God in order that we might be saved (Romans 3:25-26).
Had you ever stopped and considered God in so many wonderful ways? Every attribute is of great importance to our understanding of who God is. And yet with all the ground I have covered in the last three weeks, it is still mind-numbing to attempt to wrap one’s mind around the Almighty God. In fact it cannot be done!
-Quotations taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, unless otherwise noted-
Worship Wednesday: Thinking about Doing Church “Wet and Wild – A Look at Baptism, Part One”
I’ll never forget a conversation I had with the professor of my World Religions class in my sophomore year of college. This guy had his doctorate in Religious Studies, had been teaching religion for over ten years, and had written a couple of books on religious rituals. Now granted, his focus in the field was Eastern Religions, but he was very knowledgeable about basic practice of a variety of religions.
On this particular day, we were working our way through our study of Christianity and were talking about its associated rituals. The professor explained that while traditions varied among denominations, all sects of Christianity were united by two main rituals: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Fair enough. But as he began to teach on baptism; on what it means and how it is performed, it became clear to me that he was describing baptism as part and parcel with salvation. He explained that baptism came after an expressed faith and was the final step in the salvation process.
I realize now that this was a fair assumption since many sects of Christianity do in fact teach baptism as an element of salvation, but at the time I was more naïve and yet bold enough to raise my hand and challenge him. I told him that baptism was not necessary for salvation but, quoting Romans 10:9-10, only confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in him was necessary for salvation.
He said something along the lines of “yea, sure” but went on to explain the importance of baptism as the final piece of the salvific puzzle. I told him that my church taught that baptism was about symbolism and obedience and he was SHOCKED to find out that I went to a BAPTIST church. “A Baptist Church that doesn’t baptize?” he mocked. This Doctor of Religion went on to say that he had NEVER heard of any denomination or any church within Christianity teaching baptism as meaning anything other than salvation.
Well there’s a first time for everything. I met with him after class and gave him a hypothetical situation to consider. I asked him to imagine that he was in a car accident and I came to visit him in the hospitable and explained the Gospel to him. Then by an act of God (and ONLY by an act of God) he expressed his belief in Jesus and confessed him as Lord of his life. I asked him to then consider that he died there in the hospital before we even had time to think about baptism. I told him that in this hypothetical situation, he would be saved and spend eternity with Christ, despite his being unbaptized. Again – he was blown away by my suggestion. He literally had never heard such a claim within his Christian research.
He challenged me to do some research myself and I did – and I was shocked to find that many denominations within Christianity do in fact teach baptism as necessary for salvation. I was intrigued. I studied their arguments. I read the biblical passages. And I was not convinced. To this day, however, this experience has impacted me and helped me to understand the importance of clarity and intentional meaning when it comes to the beliefs and teaching of any particular church or denomination.
So the cat is now out of the bag – I believe that the Bible is clear that while baptism is hugely important to our Christian faith, it is NOT necessary for salvation.
There are two main groups of Christians who hold to “Baptismal Regeneration” (the smart way of saying baptism is necessary for salvation). There is the “strong version” of this belief, which claims that the actual act of baptism is what saves an individual. Nothing more, nothing less; baptism saves. Of course these groups understand that baptism means the person believes the Christian tenets, otherwise they wouldn’t be getting baptized. But the physical act of baptism is the means by which that person can attain salvation. The main group holding to this belief is the Roman Catholic Church.
The “mild version” of this belief is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but is not sufficient for salvation by itself. They would claim that baptism must go along with expressed faith in Jesus (one must “believe AND be baptized”). The largest groups in this category are the Christian Churches (Church of God, Church of Christ, Christian Church, etc).
The understanding of and holding to these views leads to the (unbiblical, in my opinion) idea of infant baptism in many denominations. Many believe that infants could be baptized and saved because of their implicit faith based on the explicit faith of their parents. This is found nowhere in Scripture. For fear of being stoned, let me clarify and say I DO believe that infants can be saved if they die, but not because of the faith of their parents or because they were baptized. This is a topic for another day, but I believe there is an innocence to an infant that is not condemned by God, but that there is an age where babies become aware of their sin and are then responsible for repenting and turning to Christ, whether someone sprinkled water on them in their infancy or not.
Anyway, in taking the WHOLE of the New Testament into consideration, we MUST conclude that it is by faith alone that we are saved. There are one or two texts that these faiths use to suggest that baptism saves. But salvation is the topic of the entire New Testament, and if baptism were an element of that salvation, there would be many more than one or two unclear passages that promote this idea. It would be written throughout Paul’s work, just like “by grace through faith” is written throughout Paul’s work.
Now it is true that in the New Testament, there is no such thing as an unbaptized believer, and that is perhaps why the New Testament never explicitly speaks to the idea of baptism and salvation, because the issue never arises. Baptism as a symbolic profession of the faith that saved was so important to them that it was not a question of whether or not one should do it. Preachers in the New Testament are often recorded saying “repent and be baptized” because this was the normal order back then. Baptism is important, but not necessary for salvation.
Acts 10:43-48 makes this point very clear for me. Peter preaches to a crowd and we are told that “many hear it and believe.” They are then immediately described as “converts” which suggests that they are understood to be saved, after having believed. THEN Peter says “why should these not be baptized?” and proceeds to baptize those who have just believed.
Another critically important text on this matter is in 1st Corinthians 1. There is an argument in place concerning who has been baptized by whom. Paul gets agitated with this discussion and clearly and angrily states in verse 17 that he has not come to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, because it is the Gospel that saves. Paul would never have made such a bold statement if his listeners HAD to be baptized in order to be saved. Paul’s life after his conversion was devoted to leading as many people as possible to salvation. He surely would not have put such a stumbling block as this before his people.
If baptism is not for salvation purposes, then what in the world is it for? Why do we do it? There is not a single denomination of Christianity that doesn’t practice baptism (with the exception of some truly ignorant Baptists in much of the northeastern United States – a mystery no doubt). Why should we repent AND be baptized? I’ll take a look at this in depth next Wednesday, along with a consideration of the mode of baptism (sprinkling, pouring, dunking) and its importance.
Tough Topic Tuesday: Considerable Considerations “What the Hell? Part One”
Does a place called “hell” really exist? Is it out there somewhere in the great spiritual beyond? Or perhaps miles and miles below our feet? If we took a survey of the general population of the United States, it is likely that a majority of people would say “no, hell does not exist.” If we surveyed only Christians, the response might be 50-50. And of those Christians surveyed who claimed to believe in hell’s existence, very few if any would be living their lives as if that were the case.
So does hell exits? The Bible teaches in many, many places that it indeed does.
Jesus refers to hell as “the unquenchable fire” in Mark 9:43. He goes on to say in verse 48 that hell is a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” He also tells a parable-like story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 that suggests a horrible conscious punishment in hell:
"The rich man also dies and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom, and he called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame….Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment!"
Unquenchable fire. Jesus’ stories always had an important point to be made, and it seems very clear here that he is suggesting a tormenting hell after death for those who do not know the Lord.
Revelation 14 also speaks of this place of torment:
“A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: 'If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night.'”
Revelation describes a similar fate for the devil and his angels in Revelation 20 and in Matthew 25:41.
Wayne Grudem reminds us that “These verses [about hell] should make us realize the immensity of the evil that is found in sin and rebellion against God, and the magnitude of the holiness and the justice of God that calls forth this kind of punishment.” Many have argued before that eternal torment seems like a bit of an extreme punishment for some sins committed in our short little lives… But David Kingdom observes that “Sin against the creator is heinous to a degree utterly beyond our sin-warped imaginations’ ability to conceive of it. Who would have the temerity to suggest to God what the punishment should be?”
If you follow Christ, if you believe the Bible is God’s Word, then you must understand that hell does in fact exist and that it exists for a purpose. It is the punishment for sin. It is torment for eternity. And we should desire that no person spend their eternity in that way. And if you don’t follow Christ, hell exists all the same! Take heed.
This is a very difficult and controversial topic even among evangelical Christians. More time will be spent here next week as I consider “Why did God create hell?”
The highest compliment leaders can receive is the one that is given by the people who work for them.
-John Maxwell
Manly Monday: What does a Man of God look like? “The Head of the Household”
Randy Stinson gave a lecture in his Family Ministry class at Southern Seminary on the Nine Qualities of Leadership, tailored to the role of “head of the household.” The lecture is now published in the book he co-authored, A guide to Biblical Manhood. Very helpful book, very helpful lecture. What does it mean to be the head of the household? Let me summarize here these nine incredible points:
Vision: This is where we are going. It’s a vision for the home, a direction to move towards, goals to achieve, etc. The leader must be able to convey and explain the vision to the family. He must be able to gain support from members involved in the vision.
Direction: This is how we are going to get there. The man must map out the vision, put it on paper, have ideas for how to accomplish it, make a game plan, and get after it.
Instruction: Let me show you how. This is preparation. Consider the obstacles in the way of your vision and discuss them with your family and plan how you are going to overcome them. Give comfort to the others and tell them how you intend to accomplish the vision with their help.
Imitation: Watch me. Lead by example. Do not ask others to do what you yourself are not willing to do. Be an inspiring example and a clear demonstration of what you want others to be.
Inspiration: Isn’t this great? You are responsible for the morale of the home. You need to be the encourager and the motivator of the group. You need to affirm the things that your family is doing. This doesn’t mean that everything is always going to be good and dandy but you must make the others aware that you are excited about the family and where it is going.
Affirmation: You’re doing Great! This is the individual encouragement of each person in the group. Individually, people need to know that you approve of who they are, what they are doing, and that you appreciate their being part of the family. They are likely not being affirmed elsewhere and they need to hear that from you.
Evaluation: How are we doing? This is usually one of the most difficult ones, but it is the burden of leadership. It is often the most important one. The more often you do this, the less painful it is, because if you are continually evaluating and making corrections, you will not get as far off course.
Correction: Let’s make a change. Evaluation is meaningless unless there is correction that follows. It is our responsibility to fix the problems that we see.
Protection and Provision: I’ll take care of you. You must first realize that you cannot be perfect in this matter, but you must vow to do everything within your power to make your family happy. It is committing to the idea of never leaving or giving up on them and vowing never to withhold any of your energy, effort, or life in attempting to keep them safe and happy. But this idea should extend beyond your own family, to the helpless, the homeless, the orphans, and whomever else God burdens you with in your community, in your church, or in your world. It is the call of every man!
I highly recommend this book, A Guide to Biblical Manhood, by Randy Stinson and Dan Dumas, to every man on the planet!
If you wait until you smell burnt popcorn, it's too late! You have to anticipate its burning, and intervene beforehand.
-A leadership principle derived from a mid-morning snack. This same concept can be applied to those following your leadership. A good leader will resolve countless problems before they are even known to be problems. They will always have discerning ears.
Some Thoughts on the Virgin Mary, from Charles Spurgeon
"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." -Luke 11:27-28
There are some people who enjoy the notion that Mary, the mother of our Lord, had very special privileges because they presume she had the benefit of looking into his heart in a way we could never hope to do. Although this idea may appear to have some plausibility, there is not much. We are not told that Mary knew more than others, but that what she did know she "pondered in her heart" (Luke 2:19). And from what we read in the gospels, she does not appear to have been a better-instructed believer than any other of Christ's followers. In fact, everything she knew we may discover as well!
Are you surprised by these statements? Then observe: "The Lord confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them" (Ps. 25:14). And remember Jesus' words: "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you" (John 15:15). The divine revealer of secrets tells us his heart and holds nothing back that would be profitable for us. His words of assurance: "If it were not so, I would have told you" (John 14:2).
Doesn't Jesus even today reveal himself to us but not to those in the world? Because this is true, we do not call out to him in ignorance, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth." On the contrary, with knowledge we bless God for the fact that as a result of obediently following the Word after he revealed it to us, we have just as much fellowship and oneness with the Savior as the virgin Mary had. And we have as much knowledge of the intimate secrets of his heart as some believe only she obtained.
The angel Gabriel told Mary, "Greetings, you who are highly favored!" and again, "You have found favor with God" (Luke 1:28-29). Being shown favor by the Lord, however, does not mean Mary was perfect, as some have taught. In fact, Mary recognized her need of a Savior as well, for she proclaimed, "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my savior" (Luke 1:46-47).
The truth is, every believer has been shown favor, for it is only by God's grace that any of us stand before him redeemed, forgiven, and righteous! The Old Testament tells us, "Whoever finds me, finds life and receives favor from the Lord" (Prov. 8:35); "Surely, O Lord, you bless the righteous; you surround them with your favor as with a shield" (Ps. 5:12); and "The Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless" (Ps. 84:11). Then Paul, quoting from Isaiah 49:8, tells us, "'In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you.' I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2).
Former Facts Friday: Pondering Church History "The Catholic Church, Part Three"
Read Part One: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6395818774/former-facts-friday-pondering-church-history-the
Read Part Two: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6627641030/former-facts-friday-pondering-church-history-the
So things were changing in the church. But to the point discussed thus far, none of these changes were THAT far off base right? Certainly they began some odd traditions and did some questionable things, but really it was nothing that was intolerable. In fact, the changes took place so slowly that few were bothered (except those pious monks who broke off from the mainstream church to begin monasteries all over Europe). It was kind of like the boiling of a frog. The common church people were just unaware of how hot things were getting all around them!
I hinted last week that perhaps one of the most significant changes in the Catholic Church, if not THE most significant change was the establishment of the pope. Now, there is some controversy about who was the first pope, and at some times early on there were multiple popes simultaneously and certain groups claimed one of them was the true line while other groups preferred the second line and so on. It can be very confusing.
What we do know is that two pope figures in particular were really significant in the molding of the office of the pope early on – Leo I around the year 400 and Gregory I around the year 540. Pope Leo gave the papacy its name and pomp while Gregory really gave the papacy its power. Leo CLAIMED to be the absolute effective ruler of Rome, but Gregory actually BECAME that powerhouse and showed it. He used his papal authority in ways it had never been used before!
Gregory began to build on the hierarchy of the leadership of the Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome (later – the pope) had always been viewed as a leader among leaders in the church but he really put himself as a first among equals. He did grant a type of equality to the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople which made them the second tier of the levels of power in the Catholic Church. But Gregory in fact exercised authority and power over all other Bishops.
Despite the claim by Leo that the pope was head of the church, and despite the growth of the power of the papacy by Gregory, these powers led to decline in the honor of the papacy. The Papacy became a coveted political office, which drove many popes to corruption and dishonor. The papacy became a pawn for rich Italian families to attempt to gain power and glory.
This in turn drove the emergence of the idea of Christendom, the ungodly and unbiblical joining of church and state. The Part became the Whole. At one point, Western, Latin Christianity was a part of the church. Then it became this thing called Christendom, connecting church to territory. In 800, Charlemagne, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor. He completed the integration of church, state, and society by establishing the “Holy Roman Empire.” The humble church that Jesus came to establish had become an empire! Leo’s role in the crowning of the emperor staked a claim of supremacy for the Pope. Charlemagne reigned until 814 and he advanced the Papal cause most effectively. He enlarged the territory of Christendom, or Pope Christianity, in the name of the Christian God. As he conquered new lands, he Christianized them. His empire grew to include most of Western Europe.
No theological giants stocked the land during this time (500-1100) and the church seemed theologically confused or even back trodden. There really was a spiritual dark ages that took place. There have always been those who screamed against the formal institution of the church and what it was becoming, but the corruption in the upper echelons of the Catholic hierarchy was well underway, and a quick look at the progression of Catholic theology will make the point.
Gregory I introduced the idea of purgatory to the Christian world. He was also responsible for requiring the use of Latin in prayer and worship in the church as well as the redirection of prayers from God and his Son to the mother Mary, to dead saints, and even to angels. In 786, the veneration of crosses, images, and relics was authorized. In 927, The College of Cardinals was established. In 995, the canonization of dead people as “saints” was instituted. In the year 1000, attendance at mass was made mandatory. In 1079, Pope Gregory VII decrees the celibacy of the priesthood. In 1090, the Rosary is instituted and in 1190 the sale of indulgences is established to reduce one’s time in purgatory.
In 1215, Pope Innocent III explains transubstantiation and declares it doctrine, and introduces the confession of sins to priests. In 1439, the doctrine of the Seven Sacraments is affirmed. In 1545 the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha part of the canon and declared Tradition to be equal in authority with the Bible (officially).
All of these elements of the Catholic Church were instituted along the way by the various popes. This idea of tradition and papal authority began early on in the church in an infant form. The early Bishops would site scripture as authoritative but would then attempt to give the CORRECT interpretation of that scripture based on succession, or based on who they were taught by. For example, they would read a text, give an interpretation of that text, and then validate THEIR interpretation based on who had taught them (i.e. “I received this interpretation from Thaddeus, who received it from Cornelius, who received it from Timothy, who received it from Paul, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit”). This set a foundation for traditionalism. For them, the correctness of interpretation did not come from exegesis of scripture but from the “traditional” interpretation.
This was the papacy in its premature form. The papacy is based on the idea that he is the successor of Peter, the “father” of the church. And because they are the successors of Peter (whether considered physical succession or spiritual succession), they have the same inspired authority that he had.
This is really what the idea of tradition versus Tradition comes down to. The papal decree, the voice of the church, was (and still is) considered as inspired and as authoritative as scripture. And thus all the past decrees of former popes, decisions made during times of corruption and competition, became considered the Tradition of Roman Catholicism, and were made equally authoritative as scripture. The true beauty of Protestantism is that our tradition, along with the implementation of reason, as well as experience, are all INFORMATIVE to how we construct our theology and practical ecclesiology BUT these things are always placed UNDER the absolute, divine authority of scripture. Thus Protestants are not bound to the decisions and decrees of some Christian leader in the 800s or 1300s. They are willing to admit that no man is perfect, not even a pope. They admit that the popes, though having good intentions at one time, were wrong in some instances. Protestants are not bound by Tradition, but bound to Scripture.
There were some that realized that the authority of the church had overstepped its bounds. There were some that were no longer willing to work within the broken system. There were leaders among those groups. And those leaders took on the Catholic Church in big ways, and thus the Protestant Reformation was born.
Theological Thursday: Interpreting the Bible “The Attributes of God, Part Two”
Read Part One: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6597322709/theological-thursday-interpreting-the-bible-the
We will never fully know or comprehend God in this lifetime. Nonetheless, if we are going to serve God or believe in God for salvation, we should make every effort to know everything about him that we can. Here are several more of what we call the attributes of God.
Spirituality: “God is Spirit.” This statement is spoken by Jesus in the context of a discussion with the woman at the well. Since this is the case, we should do our best not to think about God as having a physical form. We are physical beings and nearly all that we ever experience is in the physical realm. But God tells us in Exodus 20 that his “form” is unlike anything we can relate to. He says “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Invisibility: “God’s total essence, all of his spiritual being, will never be able to be seen by us.” John 1:18 says “No one has ever seen God.” Paul says in 1st Timothy 1:17, “To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.” God has and does sometimes manifest himself in the physical world. For example, the Bible tells us that God “appeared to Abraham,” and at other times to Jacob, to the elders of Israel, to Manoah, to Isaiah, and to others. He “caused his glory to pass” in front of Moses. So while this is a way in which God interacts with his creation, the previous verses make it clear that no one has or will see God fully. The closest thing to such a sighting of God in his fullness is the person of Jesus Christ, but again this is a physical manifestation of a spiritual, invisible God.
Omniscience: “God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.” Elihu says that God is the one “who is perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16) and John says that God “knows everything” (1 John 3:20). To say that God fully knows himself is pretty impressive, since he is eternal and unending, but such is the nature of God’s knowability. 1st Corinthians 2:10-11 says “for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God…No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” As if that weren’t saying enough, we have to consider that God knows not only all things that actually are, but that he knows all things that are possible as well. That’s a lot of knowledge!
Truthfulness: “God’s truthfulness means that he is the true God, and that all his knowledge and words are both true and the final standard of truth.” Jeremiah 10 tells us that “The Lord is the true God.” What does it mean to be the true God as opposed to other beings who are not God? What kind of idea of God must one conform to in order to be the true God? This can be a dangerous train of thought to follow because we, as mere created beings, cannot really understand what the “true God” must look like. God himself is the only being that has the perfect idea of what the “true God” should be like! Thankfully he has revealed so much to us in his Word, which enables us to recognize him as the one true God.
Will: “God’s will is the attribute of God whereby he approves and determines to bring about every action necessary for the existence and activity of himself and all creation.” Wow – that was a mouthful! Ephesians 1:11 says that God is the one “who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will.” All things were created by God’s will. All events taking place down to the smallest detail from eternity past to eternity future take place in accordance with God’s will. Human beings are free to make choices and are responsible and held accountable for those choices, but ultimately, all things happen in accordance with God’s will!
Freedom: “God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases.” All things happen in accordance with the will of God and so we should not be surprised that there is nothing spiritual or physical that could stand in the way of God accomplishing anything that he desires. Psalm 115:3 says “Our God in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.”
Omnipotence: “God’s omnipotence means that God is able to do all his holy will.” Literally omnipotence means all-powerful. This attribute extends from will and freedom to say that God is powerful and capable to accomplish any task he sets forth to accomplish. Genesis 18:14 asks the rhetorical question “Is anything too hard for God?” God’s power, like his many other characteristics, is infinite, and so he is not only capable of carrying out the desires of his will, but he is capable of accomplishing much more. Mathew 3:9 tells us that “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Obviously, God did not actually do this, but he could have if he had so chosen.
Wisdom: “God’s wisdom means that God always chooses the best goals and the best means to those goals.” Job 12:13 says “With [God] are wisdom and might, he has counsel and understanding.” The psalmist exclaims “O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” (Psalm 104:24). As God created the universe, it was perfectly suited to bring him glory, both in the day-to-day processes and in the goals and purposes for which he created it. Even as we see the effects of sin ravaging the natural world, we should be amazed at how harmonious and intricate God’s creation is!
Had you ever stopped and considered God in so many wonderful ways? We are still but halfway there. The Bible tells us of many more of God’s wonderful attributes, coming next week!
-Quotations taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, unless otherwise noted-
Worship Wednesday: Thinking about Doing Church “The Mystery of the Church”
In Ephesians 3:2-3 Paul says “Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation.” And also in Colossians 1:24-26 he says “for the sake of his body, which is the church, I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people.” Have you ever wondered what this mysterious element of the church pertains to?
Clearly, these passages are describing a previously concealed truth that God has now revealed concerning the church. It was previously unknown, but now has been made known. A familiarity with the Old Testament will lead to the conclusion that the meaning of the mystery is the idea of the gentile inclusion in the body of Christ. Meaning that before the mystery was revealed, the Jews believed that Jesus was THEIR savior and no one else’s. They believed he was the Jewish savior and thus to be saved you either had to be a Jew or convert to being a Jew. They saw the life of Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy for the Jewish people.
The Old Testament does seem to suggest the eventual inclusion of gentiles in the plan of salvation, but it was difficult to see before the New Testament helped to make it clear. Look at Isaiah 2…Isaiah looks to the last days where the nations will stream to Jerusalem and worship together with the Jews. Isaiah 19 is another great place to look. Here Isaiah tells of the deliverance of the people of Egypt…of their saving and their healing and their turning to and worshipping God; and also the turning of Assyria. It says that these two nations along with Israel will one day worship together! This must be speaking of the post-Christ uniting of Jews and gentiles. These are just two small examples! There are many other passages that suggest this kind of all-inclusive salvation plan. These include Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, Psalm 46:8-11, Psalm 96:1-13 and even Gen 12:1-3.
If these texts seem so explicit about gentile salvation then WHAT is the mystery that was revealed in the New Testament? The mystery is the way in which this gentile inclusion is accomplished in the New Testament through Christ and the church. The way it was envisioned in the OT times was likely an idea of gentiles turning to God, becoming circumcised, and becoming Jews. They could not imagine the type of unity that would come through Jesus. They did not expect the joining of these peoples apart from the circumcision and the laws and all the Jewish tradition. They did not expect that the coming of Christ would essentially bring an end to Judaism as such and begin something entirely new and non-exclusive.
Think about how many times in the New Testament Paul has to deal with the question, “Do these gentiles who accept Christ need to be circumcised?” And the answer Paul always gave was “No!” and that was a remarkable thing to the Jews; it was a mystery revealed. The union of these two groups happened via Christ. Christianity allowed Jews to be Jews and gentiles to be gentiles and yet all be saved by faith in Christ. This was a unifying concept, with Jesus at the center of this new movement. In Galatians 2, Paul says that trying to force gentile Christian converts to be circumcised betrays the truth of the Gospel, that we are called only to faith in Christ, as we are.
The point of this revealed mystery is that God intends the church to be the union of disparate peoples, whose identity in Christ trumps everything else. That means that faith in Christ should trump a commitment to Moses and the ceremonial laws. It means that faith in Christ should trump all differences in gender, race, nationality, golf club membership, and it should even trump our identity as Americans! This is the beauty of the mystery - that Christ is at the center, in the highest place. And salvation is freely offered to all who would put their faith in Jesus Christ!
Tough Topic Tuesday: Considerable Considerations “The Existence of Evil, Part Two”
Read Part One: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6531095457/tough-topic-tuesday-considerable-considerations-the
I suggested last week that the reality of evil in the world, our understanding of its existence, and our understanding of it being morally wrong actually point to God’s existence rather than his non-existence. Again that is because evil is not self –existent but is the corruption of something good that already existed. Evil is the corruption of something good. Evil is the corruption of both creation and humankind (also creation) and it began in the Garden of Eden.
In the beginning God created all things. He then looked out over all that he had created and declared it to be very good. That is in Genesis 1:31. However, Genesis 3 tells of the corruption of God’s creation, caused by the temptation by Satan and the poor choices of Adam and Eve.
What is most important to grasp in this discussion is that God himself did not sin, and God is not to be blamed for sin. It was man who sinned, and it was angels who sinned, and in both cases they did so by willful, voluntary choice. To blame God for sin would be blasphemy against the character of God. Job 34:10 says “Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.” James 1:13 says “God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one.”
So it was in Genesis 3 that corruption entered the created world and corruption invaded human nature. At the moment, human beings undermined the will and authority of God and sinned for the first time. In an instant they questioned whether or not God’s words were true, whether or not they really had to obey his command, and whether or not they knew right from wrong better than God And they came to an incredibly irrational conclusion and chose, by their own free will, to sin against God. At that moment, the world was thrust into a state of corruption.
An observant person will certainly point out that evil must have existed prior to “the Fall,” because didn’t someone TEMPT Adam and Eve to sin before they ever sinned??
And in fact sin had been committed prior to the sin of Adam and Eve. Somewhere between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1, there must have been a rebellion in the angelic world during which many angels turned against God and became evil. The Bible mentions this event only twice – in 2nd Peter 2:4 and in Jude 6. Upon reading these passages, one finds that there were in fact angels who “sinned” against God and were therefore cast out of heaven. This rebellion was no doubt led by Satan himself. His personal rebellion against God is described in Isaiah 14:12-15 where he tried to “make himself like the Most High.” These rebellions were in fact the very first sins, and they took place before Adam and Eve.
The fall of Satan, the fall of many angels, and finally the fall of man. All of God’s perfect creation is now saturated with corruption and rot and rust and decay. Roman 8 says that creation groans in frustration and is waiting to be “liberated from its bondage to decay,” which it was subjected to “not by its own choice.” But wait - was this not all part of God’s plan?
It is true that the existence of sin and the existence of evil cannot be directly attributed to God for God cannot do anything contrary to his nature, which is perfectly good. However, it would also be wrong to say that God was unaware that his perfect world would be corrupted. It would also be wrong to suggest that God did not have the story of salvation through Jesus’ death on the cross planned out from the beginning, even before sin entered the world.
You see, “God accomplishes ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Therefore, while God did not sin, and is not to blame for sin (Satan is), we must allow that God did ordain that sin would come into the world, even though he hates sin and rightly punishes mankind for it. God sees all of the past, present, and future in an instant, and he is the beginning cause of all things past, present, and future, and thus sin and evil fit into his ultimate plan for his creation. But that sin entered the world through the voluntary choices of moral creatures. God did not cause sin, but he did ordain it’s existence.
This is what the Bible tells us! If these concepts are difficult to wrap your mind around, welcome to theology! We should not expect to be able to understand everything about how God works with our feeble minds. We can only diligently study his Word, live in awe of his mercy and grace, and thank him for the salvation that he freely offers to all men who will accept him!
Manly Monday: What does it Mean to be a Man? “The Head of the Household”
In the home, being the “head of the household” is the divine calling of every husband. It means simply that the husband is the person in the home who is PRIMARILY responsible for the leadership, protection, and provision in the home (see last Monday’s blog). When a husband and wife covenant together and decide to raise a family together, both are responsible for the successful implementation of these three elements in the home. However, by God’s design, the man of the house has been given greater responsibility in this area and thus will be held to a higher level of accountability. This has always been God’s design for the marriage relationship. After Adam and Eve sinned, God called Adam to account first (Gen 3:9) for what they had done. It wasn’t that Eve bore no responsibility for the sin, but that the man bore the PRIMARY responsibility for their actions.
There are many more texts explicitly relating to the biblical headship of the husband in the home. These include Ephesians 5:21-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1st Peter 3:1-7, and, as mentioned, the first few chapters of Genesis.
What this whole subject really comes down to is the fact that the Bible reveals that the relationship between husband and wife is meant to portray the relationship between Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5:22-23). The husband is to model the loving, sacrificial leadership of Christ, and the wife is to model the glad submission offered freely by the Church.
Did Job know about Jesus?
In Job 19:25-27, Job said this:
"I know that my redeemer lives, and he shall stand at last on the earth. And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold. How my heart yearns within me!"
Job, even after all he had been through, and through all the suffering, had incredible faith in God even still. Job trusted in the Lord, whom he described as his redeemer. AND he looked forward to the day when Jesus would actually "stand at last on the earth."
In some respects, Job was called upon to show greater faith than we are, for he looked forward in faith, whereas we look back to Jesus' first coming and we have a great amount of evidence to support the fact that he indeed walked the earth and performed many miracles. Job had only faith.
Because of Job's faith, he knew God at an incredibly personal level, enough to call him redeemer. Yet so many today look back and see the person of God in human flesh, see the miracles he performed, see the perfect life that he lived, see the innocent death he endured, see his resurrection, see the coming of the Holy Spirit and the explosion of the church, see the opportunity of redemption written clearly in the Word of God, and yet still have not enough faith to call the Lord redeemer. What a tragedy!
"May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O Lord, my Rock and my REDEEMER!" (Psalm 19:14)
Every great institution is the lengthened shadow of a single man. His character determines the character of his organization.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Every organization reflects its leader. There would be no compassionate organization called The Salvation Army if not for William Booth. There would have been no Methodist Awakening if not for John Wesley. The modern missionary movement would not exist without William Carey. God doesn't look for masses, or even for committees,. No - when God wants to accomplish something, he looks for a leader.
Former Facts Friday: Pondering Church History “The Catholic Church, Part Two”
Read Part One: http://jonhearing.tumblr.com/post/6395818774/former-facts-friday-pondering-church-history-the
The canon, creeds, and bishops helped to protect the early church from heresies and attacks against its purity. But the system had a flaw – humans! The canon held its ground. The creeds held their ground for the most part. But the bishops began to waver. And as they moved their eyes from the church to themselves, there was the beginning of an incredible chain of events, taking place over the course of a thousand years, which led to the Catholic Church that we know today.
Very early on, the “office” of bishop began to evolve. It evolved for reasons that seemed to require it, and a slow movement over a long period of time makes it difficult to realize how far one has moved from the starting point. Churches were being planted at an alarming rate, which required the institution of many bishops quickly. But at the same time, they found that the fewer the number of leaders they put in place at any particular church or city, the quicker decisions could be made. And admittedly some bishops were better leaders/speakers than others and so began to gain a following of lay people as well as a following of other bishops. Things quickly began to change in a number of important ways:
Salvation: As early as the 4th century, “saving faith” began to lose its dependence on the person of Jesus and the focus of salvation was shifted towards the church. Christ was part of the church still, but not the center of it. The overwhelming evidence for this is the emphasis that baptism and the Lord’s Supper began to draw. The pulpit and the preaching of the Word was taken out of center stage and replaced with the altar of the eucharist (communion). At some point, infant baptism became popular and then accepted as normal, suggesting that salvation was tied to church membership (since infants were born into the church, they were included), rather than believing and repenting. A quote recorded in 300 AD brings this point home: “No person can have God as Father unless they have the church as mother.”
Leadership: In the New Testament, leadership in the church appears to have been based on giftedness and a humble calling of God. However, as early as the fourth century, the beginning of a hierarchical system in the church was being realized. Leaders were chosen based on popularity, seniority, wealth, successionism (based on who you know), and a number of other reasons. Early Christian writings suggest the New Testament church functioned democratically (power to the people), but by 300 BC, bishops began claiming authority that was not theirs to claim. They claimed authority over other bishops. They claimed they were the only ones worthy of administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It was said in that time period “Where the church is, the Bishop is. There is no church without the Bishop.”
Worship: Again, early Christian writings (called apologies) suggest that the New Testament church had a worship service that included singing, scripture reading, prayer, and exhortation (preaching). But with each passing century, the Bishops led the church further away from this model and took it back to something like a synagogue with a priest. The sacraments (baptism and communion) became the most important thing, and they became a big show. Preaching and prayer were replaced with liturgies that sucked the Spirit out of the service. And suddenly the preciseness and the exactness of the form and the words became extremely important.
Religious Ritual: It was during this transitional time period that the church began implementing some very strange ideas. They started using processions. They began to wear extensive and splendid outfits. They began to revere (and worship) the bones of the church’s martyrs. They began giving special attention and even worship to Jesus’ mother. And they began implementing a number of festivals and feasts that simply distracted them from the main purposes of the church. They became obsessed with successionism, or being able to trace their lineage or their church back to the disciples.
And this was just the beginning.
The mutations were under way and the evolution of the church had begun. It was only a matter of time before the ideas of hierarchy and successionism combined to bring forth the doctrine of the Pope. And before long, the authority of God’s Word was challenged and forced to coexist with another authority: the authority of TRADITION. These two concepts, pope and tradition, opened the floodgate to a number of transformations that took the Catholic Church so far off track that it required a Reformation. These changes are the topic of next Friday’s post!