Oh, Christian, what are the things that consume your mind? Paul wrote to the Colossians, “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (3:1-2). Believers are exhorted to always be seeking and thinking on things above. The imperative continuous present tense is used for seeking and thinking. But seek and think upon what? The context dictates that we are to think and devote our minds to heavenly things such as our union with Christ, forgiveness of our sins, and our progressive sanctification in receiving nourishment from Christ as the Head (2:19).

Let us take a few minutes of our chaotic, scatter-brained lives and consider just one of these wonderful mysteries of the faith: our union with Christ. In doing so, for the believer, this will naturally bring us to a place of magnifying our Savior for his amazing sovereign grace!

Thinking About Our Union With Christ and it’s Benefits

Paul revealed that it is God who has set apart sinners by his free grace. “But God…even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive” (Eph. 2:4-5). This converting grace that quickens man from the dead is clearly a product of God alone. “And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). This, my friends, is explicit monergism stated here! God does this because of the riches of his mercy, greatness of his love, and his free sovereign grace (Eph. 2:4-5).

At conversion people are not merely saved by grace but brought into union with Christ.[1] This is what Paul was referring to when he wrote, God “made us alive together with Christ” and that believers are “created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5, 10).[2] The renowned theologian John Murray (1898-1975 C.E.), in his classic work Redemption Accomplished and Applied, declared:

Nothing is more central or basic than union and communion with Christ. … Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ. Indeed the whole process of salvation has its origin in one phase of union with Christ and salvation has in view the realization of other phases of union with Christ.[3]

The implications of union with Christ are incredible. This is the root to which all the benefits of being in Christ grow out of - justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. Due to the cross-work of Christ, redemption and all its benefits are applied to those who are given the gift of grace. John Calvin, one of the greatest biblical exegetes in the history of the church, also emphasized union with Christ. He wrote that “there is no sanctification without union with Christ.”[4]

Thinking About What God Has Done In Sanctification

Sanctification and union with Christ both take place by grace in a once and for all definitive act, at conversion. Think about the implications here in regards to modern day preachers who teach their flocks that you must “do something” to stay in union with Christ. Christ saves his own by grace and keeps them by that same grace! This initial sanctification, theologians refer to as definitive sanctification.

It is the Holy Spirit who definitively unites us to Christ (John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:13). As Calvin says, “the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually binds us to himself.”[5] This is what Peter meant when he wrote, believers are “elect …according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” (1 Pet. 1:1-2).

Paul also wrote about definitive sanctification. “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus.” (1 Cor. 1:2; c.f. Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:11). The term “sanctified” is passive signifying it was God who did the sanctifying. This term is also in the perfect tense, meaning the effects, though in the past, continue on into the future.[6] When this is coupled with what Paul says later it becomes an airtight case for this teaching. He writes, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Here “sanctified” is used in the aorist passive indicative which is speaking of an action that has occurred sometime in the past as a matter of fact!

We also see this asserted in Romans 6-8 where Paul argues that Christians have died to the life of sin and can no longer live in such a way (Rom. 6:1-2). In anticipating people to think that justification by grace alone (which is what Paul had been affirming in 3:20-5:21) would lead to recklessness (like many charismatic synergistic churches today teach), Paul declares that it is impossible for a believer to continue living a lifestyle of sin because of what God has done in salvation.

Thinking About What We Do As A Result Of Our Sanctification

Though there is a definite breaking with the old sinful nature which God accomplishes sola gratia, there is an aspect that involves the believer’s active involvement. This involvement is the natural result of our definitive sanctification and is referred to as progressive sanctification.

There really is no argument against the fact that man must do something to make progress in sanctification. We are told to “walk by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:25), to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12-13), and to “put to death therefore what is earthly” in us (Col. 3:5). The problem is that some misunderstand these verses and believe man is the sole active agent or that man’s works bring God’s favor in sanctification.

God is definitely involved in the process of progressive sanctification as well. To say otherwise is to separate the twin graces of justification and sanctification, to misunderstand union with Christ, and to eclipse God out of the process that he started by grace. The cooperation of the saint is simply the evidence of the grace of God in definitive sanctification.

Progress in our sanctification comes only by the strength and grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers are able to “live by the Spirit” and “put to death what is earthly” because as the apostle John so tenderly put it, “we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). John is assured that because of the new birth by the Holy Spirit the Christian will become like Christ. After essentially declaring definitive sanctification, “we are God’s children now”, and connecting it to future glory, “we know…we will be like him”, he speaks of progressive sanctification in the next verse. The apostle John writes, “And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:3). The child of God hopes in Christ and “purifies” himself. Since it is in the present active indicative mood, it denotes a continuous action, in progress, in the present time.

Adopted children of God, i.e. those in union with Christ, will purify themselves because of his grace. Adoption is rooted in grace and all sanctification is within adoption. In other words, progressive sanctification, though cooperative, is by grace and naturally flows out of definitive monergistic sanctification. This is an amazing truth that the believer can rejoice in! The very same grace that saves a person is the same grace that sanctifies that person.

Thinking About Pastoral Implications On “Thinking Things Above”

Some pastors have never even attempted to teach their congregations to think, let alone to think on this wonderful truth. It is an outrage to withhold such a glorious reality from the people of God. This is a doctrine, when considered and meditated on, brings hope in times of despair, and strength in times of weakness. In addition, to know and teach about our union with Christ is to encourage believers to depend upon our gracious Savior for nourishment for the purpose of good works.

There are many remodeled Galatian heresies out there that explicitly teach that you must do works to stay in a right standing before God. To them Paul’s rhetorical questions are still applicable:

Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2-3).

But there are those who implicitly teach the same thing by stressing community and love at the expense of sound biblical doctrine. Others redefine “gospel ministry” and leave out the preaching, teaching, and proclaiming of the gospel of grace. Biblical Christianity, and those pastors who teach, preach, and proclaim it, will not trade in their pulpits and teaching ministries. In fact, they will exhort their churches to grow as they unpack the whole counsel of God faithfully, and bring a sense of the reality of God’s presence in their preaching. Think about what the Evangelical church needs. We need pastors who will be faithful to equip and edify the sheep, and to teach them the riches of God’s grace in seeking and thinking on things above - these glorious mysteries of the faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

Mike Sarkissian

[2] Two other times in this section the apostle Paul speaks of believers being “in Christ” (2:6-7). “In Christ” is a common phrase that speaks of union with Christ.

[3] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1955), 161.

[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John McNeill. Trans. By Lewis Ford Battles (Philadelphia, PA.: Westminster, 1960), 3.14.4.

[5] Ibid., 3.1.1

[6] The Greek word is a perfect passive participle.

I will continue to contribute to this most efficacious ministry as time permits. Thanks all, and God be with you!

SEB

Every person is familiar with heartache, sorrow, and difficulties. For some, struggling with anxiety and depression is customary. Yet, how should we as Christian’s respond to the angst that we face? Do we merely heed the voice of the charismatic who says, “Oh, just have faith” or do we simply go and get a prescription for meds?

First, it should be pointed out that some of the godliest men and women in church history have been gripped by depression. We should be comforted that David, a man after God’s own heart, when he was undergoing major depression (eventually) responded in an ideal biblical manner. May this be an encouragement (and a warning) to all the saints in Christ Jesus our Lord!

King David was at an extreme high point in his life where he appeared to be very secure. The enemies of the people of God had been decisively defeated and the kingdom of Israel had extended from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River (1 Chron. 18:3, 14). It was a political golden age for Israel, in which they were becoming a very prosperous nation. But, oh how quickly the trials of life came upon David…as they do you and I.

The Snowballing Effect of Our Sin

Yet, in just a short amount of time David’s firstborn son Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:14); and Absalom, Tamar’s full-brother, responded by having Amnon murdered (2 Sam. 13:28-29). David, no doubt, knew that God brought this tragedy into his life because of his own sin. David had sought to gratify his flesh and defiled another man’s wife (the wife of Uriah) and even shed innocent blood to cover it up (2 Sam. 11). Now the word of the Lord was coming to pass (as it always does).

But in 2 Samuel 3:3 there is a valuable piece of data that also brings light to David’s present darkness. Absalom’s mother was, “Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur.” Yes, it was a custom back then to marry the daughter of a king for alliance reasons. But David violated the word of God in marrying a woman of the Geshurites. She was a pagan. The Lord was clear that the people of God were not to mix with idolatrous nations of the Gentiles (Deut. 7:3). Yoking with unbelievers results in trouble!

The snowballing effect of sin brought David to a place of tremendous heart wrenching depression. His own flesh and blood, his son whom he loved dearly had wickedly conspired against him, winning the hearts of the people. Absalom was now pursuing David with the intent to murder him. The anxiety and fear caused David to flee Jerusalem to preserve his life, even stopping to weep at the Mount of Olives (2 Sam. 15:30).

In addition, when we look at the character of Absalom we can see that he was influenced by paganism. Though it would be nice to think the mighty King stayed home and read him the Torah every day, it is more likely, in looking at Absalom’s character, that he stayed with his pagan mom and learned the stories of Ashtaroth and Baal.

The Character of Absalom

Though Absalom’s name means “Father of Peace”, he was the furthest thing from that. He was a violent, deceitful, and arrogant man. Thus, it seems certain that he was, at the very least, mildly influenced by paganism given that after he murdered his half brother Amnon (who raped his full sister Tamar) he fled to grandpa’s house in Geshur, where he would stay for three years (2 Sam. 13:37-38).

He was a very handsome feller (2 Sam. 14:25), who, when he came back to Jerusalem was praised and loved by the people. This was not due to his character but because of his appearance (my how things don’t change).

Absalom’s Glory was in Himself

He had to cut his hair annually “because it was heavy on him,” weighing close to five pounds (2 Sam. 14:26). The word heavy (kaved in Hebrew) can mean heavy, rich, severe, or important. It is also related to the word honor and glory. This is very interesting for we know that Absalom’s hair was, no doubt, his glory and was held in high esteem by him. This popularity from his good looks helped propel his ego causing him to become a self-idolater.

Human nature has not changed. People love themselves more than they love God. Absalom demonstrated this when he built and named a pillar after himself (2 Sam. 18:18). King Saul did the same thing (1 Sam. 15:12). What significance does this have? Besides the obvious loving of himself more than Yahweh, Absalom was participating in a pagan practice that believed one could receive eternal life when a monument was built for him.

He dishonored his father by undermining him through false repentance (2 Sam. 14:33), by wickedly forming a conspiracy against him (2 Sam. 15:10-12), attempting to take over the throne publically by going to his fathers concubines (2 Sam. 16:21-22), and pursuing his father with the intent of murder.

The Response of David to the Flower of His Sin

Over twenty years later David’s sin in marrying a non-believer would have devastating effects as he fled from Jerusalem weeping at the Mount of Olives (2 Sam. 15:30). The hurt he experienced from the life of his son Absalom along with the sin that resulted from the seeds of lust on that haunting night on the roof of his palace (2 Sam. 11) brought him to one of the lowest points in his life. David’s response is recorded in the third Psalm.

1 O LORD, how many are my foes! Many are rising against me;

2 many are saying of my soul, there is no salvation for him in God. Selah

From David’s perspective (the human perspective) the conspiracy was growing stronger and there were more and more people aligning with Absalom (2 Sam. 15:12). Even Ahithophel, one of his trusted advisor’s turned against him (2 Sam. 15:31). David quotes the wicked who cursed him, possibly reminiscing about Shimeah, who came out cursing and throwing stones at him (2 Sam. 16:5-8). Given the dreadful circumstances David could have easily believed that God abandoned him during his time of need.

Yet, he calls on Yahweh and points out that Yahweh is a shield, his glory, and the lifter of his head. These three specific things Yahweh is to every believer who is in crisis, not just David. The prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, commented on this passage saying,

“What a divine trio of mercies is contained in this verse!–defence for the defenceless, glory for the despised, and joy for the comfortless. Verily we may well say, ‘there is none like the God of Jeshurun.’”

3 But you, O LORD, are a shield about me, my glory, and the lifter of my head.

4 I cried aloud to the LORD, and he answered me from his holy hill. Selah

Yahweh is a shield whose protection surrounds the entire person. As Spurgeon wrote, “He wards off the fiery darts of Satan from beneath, and the storms of trials from above, while, at the same instant, he speaks peace to the tempest within the breast.” It is God himself, and only God, by his grace who does this. What a great shield our God is for us in giving complete protection!

Yahweh is our glory (kaved). He is our honor, and glory. It wasn’t the riches and power that David longed for. Maybe prior to these awful circumstances David was setting his heart upon riches and success? Now with these temporary things aside he recognized that the eternal God was his glory. Whatever occupied David’s mind prior to these conditions, God Himself had now overshadowed them. What an interesting contrast between David’s glory - Yahweh, who would spare David’s life; and Absalom’s glory - himself, which ironically would be the cause of his death (2 Sam. 18:9).

Yahweh is the lifter of our head. David, no doubt, was in a state of anguish, probably weeping and yet he recognizes this wonderful truth. The only person who can truly lift us up out of the mire of depression and bring us joy is the Sovereign Lord. This is why David calls on the Lord in prayer.

5 I lay down and slept; I woke again, for the LORD sustained me.

6 I will not be afraid of many thousands of people who have set themselves against me all around.

The greater the loss, the greater the depression; and David, no doubt, was in deep despair. However, despite his sorrow; despite the fact that he is quite possibly laying down in an open field under heaven with his enemies drawing near, he is able to sleep. The peace of God that transcends all understanding is what enables him to sleep in the midst of such trouble. Peace is the result of David going to God in prayer. He “slept happily beneath the wing of Providence in sweet security, and then awoke in safety,” as Spurgeon declares. Regardless of the innumerable amount of people who seem to be coming against him, he is sure that the sustaining hand of Yahweh will care for him.

7 Arise, O LORD! Save me, O my God! For you strike all my enemies on the cheek; you break the teeth of the wicked.

8 Salvation belongs to the LORD; your blessing be on your people! Selah

The mighty King David’s only hope is in Yahweh. Salvation, he says, is only in the hands of his God. Here we see the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Sola gratia was one of the pillars of the Reformation. From first to last, beginning to end, salvation belongs to God. As Spurgeon openly declared, and synergists must note,

This verse contains the sub and substance of Calvinist doctrine. Search Scripture through, and you must, if you read with a candid mind, be persuaded that the doctrine of salvation by grace alone is the great doctrine of the word of God… This is a point concerning which we are daily fighting. Our opponents say, “Salvation belongeth to the free will of man; if not to man’s merit, yet at least to man’s will;” but we hold and teach that salvation from first to last, in every iota of it, belongs to the Most High God. It is God that chooses his people. He calls them by his grace; he quickens them by his Spirit, and keeps them by his power. It is not of man, neither by man; “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.

This experience David went through is extremely instructive for every child of God. In light of the difficult circumstances we will go through we must ask ourselves whether our anxiety, fear, and depression can compare with that of David’s? Can we recognize the Lord as our shield, our glory, and the one who lifts our head? In the thick of the battle do we set aside quality time in prayer before venturing in? Though the irony of David’s sin had fully blossomed before him, he was a man after God’s own heart by the grace given to him by the Father. Praise God that regardless of our circumstances, by His amazing grace, He is the Divine warrior who stands in our corner!

Mike Sarkissian

Soli Deo Gloria

This writing will constitute a short series of articles relating to the attributes of God in which I will try to lay down some basic beliefs that we, as Christians, hold.  These articles will by no means be exhaustive, and I would greatly encourage anyone who is interested in going further in picking up one of many great books on the subject.  I merely seek to hit and highlight the majors to give a reasonable understanding to those who are wondering.

My reason for writing this series is a concern for the lack of a full, rounded understanding of God and how He (God) has been misrepresented throughout history to the present.  We tend to focus on one or two attributes that appeal to us, and then we toss the others aside.  I would say that the main reason for this is that, according to our human viewpoint, there are certain attributes of God that tend to clash.  For example, God is defined as love.  But, He is also defined as a consuming fire.  God is called good.  But He is also called jealous.  Keep in mind, all of these qualities are spoken of God about Himself and not by man.  So, if we then have a perfect God, how can He seemingly contradict Himself?  Well, obviously, it is we who have the problem with the so-called contradiction.  And that requires thought.  Long, hard, good ol’ fashioned thought.  And this is where most people get off the boat.

It is hard to reconcile two concepts that seem to contradict at any level in our world of thought.  For example, to be loving is always good.  To be jealous is always bad. We have been taught this since infancy.  In order to understand how these two things can exist in perfect harmony with each other, we must step out of our tainted world-view and into another.  But alas! We are creatures of comfort!  We don’t want to think about God’s anger or judgement because it makes us uncomfortable.  It doesn’t seem to mesh with the God of the New Testament.  This is why the Old Testament is so often brushed aside with so much ease.  It is easier to read about God healing the blind and casting out demons, than to read about the judgement of God coming down as fire from the sky and consuming all in it’s path.  The problem is that this only leads to a further misunderstanding of God because we’ve now disregarded three quarters of the Bible and all that that three quarters has to say about God.  For this reason, we must read all scripture and seek to obtain answers when we get to something that we don’t understand, rather than just glancing over it or pretending it doesn’t exist.  A solid understanding of God and His attributes will invariably lead to a much richer, deeper, and appreciative Christian walk.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”  2 Timothy 3:16    -KJV

God is eternal, immutable, self-existent, and infinite.

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”  Exodus 3:14    -KJV

God is eternal.  God had no beginning.  God always was.  Nothing created God.  This is a hard concept for us to grasp as everything in our world including the very universe itself, is in a constant state of decay.  We can, with the aid of high power telescopes, see to the very edge of our universe.  The light that we see from a star six-hundred light-years  away took six-hundred years to reach us.  We can look at the spectrum of that light and determine the state that star was in six centuries ago!  And that is a star relatively close to us.  But even as stars seem to be permanent fixtures in the sky, we are still able to witness the birth and death of these ancient bodies.  It is therefore no wonder we have such a hard time imagining God to have always been.  So how can we be sure that God had no beginning when our world testifies against it?  Well, we can start with this statement as it will be the premise for so much of this and the coming articles.  God is perfect.  Simple and to the point, no? No? Okay then, lets look at what this statement implies about God’s self existence and immutability, which will help us understand how He is and has to be, eternal.

The statement, “God is perfect”, means that God is, in all ways, perfect.  When He loves us, He loves us perfectly.  When He judges, He is perfectly just.  When His wrath is poured out, it is perfectly executed and with finality.  When His grace covers our sins, it does so perfectly and completely, and so on and so forth.  God never does anything half-way, nor does He make mistakes.  Whatever God does, He does it with all of his perfect attributes working perfectly together as one.  None of His attributes may be decreased, and none may be increased. They are continually perfect.  This inability to change is what is meant by God’s immutability.  It is not a limitation in any sense, but a logical outcome of a perfect being.  One can only change in two ways, either for the better, or for the worse.  If God ceased to be perfect in any one thing by diminishing a certain attribute, he would no longer be perfect and could not be God.  Likewise, neither can He increase any one thing about Him, for that would mean that there had existed a potential for change, and up until that point, God was not perfect and therefore, was not God.  This means that when God brings about the salvation of a person, it is His love, mercy, righteousness, and judgement all working together for that end.  When He let’s another fall into judgement for their sins, again, it is His love, mercy, righteousness, and judgement all working toward that end.  Throughout history, men have tended to focus on one aspect of God or another and diminish the rest.  At times, it has been God’s righteousness and judgement that have been exalted, while His love and mercy have been put aside which has given the impression of an intolerant and angry god.  At other times, and in ours especially, His love and mercy are the idealized attributes and we have ended up with a weak fluffy god who tends to cater to felt needs.  Both are dangerous for both do not give the full view of God.  When one has a full view of God, one can be sure that when they worship, it is done correctly.  When they are addressing Him in prayer, they are able to put themselves in the right place.  When they have a moral dilemma, they know what God has to say on the matter.  It is very important that we view and treat God with the respect and honor that are His.  We are not to be scared of Him in the sense that we can’t come before Him, nor are we to be so comfortable with Him that we curl up in His lap and slap Him on the back.

When we say that God is self-existent, we are merely saying that nothing created Him.  As humans, we are reliant beings.  We rely on the fact that God exists.  If God doesn’t exist, we cease to exist because we are merely a physical manifestation of God’s creative mind.  Without that mind, we never were.  God, though, was not created by anything at all, nor does He rely on anything to exist.  If He did, it would imply that He lacked something, and if He lacked in anything He would cease to be perfect.  He simply was, is, and will be.  The argument for this goes back to the statement that God is perfect, and because of this, He is immutable.  You see, it is illogical to think that there can exist two perfect beings.  If God was created, then only a perfect being would have been able to create Him because it does not follow that an imperfect being could create anything truly perfect, no matter how close that creator being was to perfection.   But a perfect being could not create another perfect being, because they would share every attribute perfectly.  There would be no difference between them for if there were, one or both would not be perfect.  So both beings would then be indistinguishable from each other, and therefore the same being, rendering the whole thought impossible.  So there we see that only one perfect being may exist and must have always existed without reliance on any other being.  So how then do we relate this to our world that is based upon beginnings and ends?  We must understand the relationship of time to both God and us to fully grasp that, and that’s easier said, but I’ll try to touch on it.  To infinity, and beyond!  (Sorry. Those of you who have kids are now laughing…)

Infinity is a word that is really hard to grasp.  In fact, it is more of a concept than a measurement.  We live in a world dictated by the time-space continuum.   Everything we seem to know exists within this model.  We have the three dimensions of height, width, and length, plus the all encompassing fourth dimension of time.  All matter and energy are moving along within time, or along the continuum.  Our world is dictated by time.  Everything in our world had a beginning and will also have an end.  We can see this.  We can touch this.  This is the most easily proven fact in the world.  This is what we know.  With time, empires rise and fall.  Mountains are raised and canyons are gouged out of the rock.  People live and people die, and in a couple generations you’re lucky if someone even remembers you ever existed.  Even the antediluvian stars mentioned above are but for a short time compared against the vast infinity.  So to say that God is infinite really taxes our finite minds.  It means that He is not bound by the time-space continuum.  He cannot be contained, but contains all things.  He cannot be measured, or ordered, weighed, nor grasped.

“Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea”   Job 11: 7-9

God is not bound by time.  God created time, so therefore, He must transcend time.  Where we live our lives in a present or now, able to look back to the past without ability to return nor see into the future, God is always in the present, regardless of where we are on the timeline.  In other words, whether God is in our past, present, or future, He is always in the present.  Also, I do not mean that He has to pick a moment on the timeline to exist at as we see in sci-fi movies where time machines are involved.  To God, the past, present, and future are all the same.  They are His now.  This is why He gets to call all of the shots concerning our lives because He can see us a billion years into the future, whereas we can’t often see to the end of the street.  God is able to simply “straddle” the whole of time and see it all at once.  He is unfettered by ages or eons or spans of time because these things as long as they are, when put alongside infinity, by reason become infinitely short.  God contains all matter and energy, as they originated from Him, and also time itself.  He is everywhere at once in all time past and future.  It would seem that His is the only true reality as ours is just the impotent measurement of a very short flicker of a flame against the expanse of ages.  And through all of this, we return to our first statement that God is eternal, and in the words of Dr. Phil, “And you can take that to the bank.”

This will lead us into the next article where we will cover the omnipotence, omnipresence, and foreknowledge of God.  Please stay tuned for part 2 of this series where I will again attempt to befoul the noble field of theology with over-simplified explanations of vastly complex topics that are much over my head and beyond my pay-grade.

SEB

It was said by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones that George Whitefield (1714-1770) was “the greatest preacher that England has ever produced.” Yes, as a matter of fact, he was an Anglican preacher and evangelist. However, if soul sleep were a biblical teaching then Whitefield just might have woken up in his grave to the damning heresies that continue to pick up speed in the very church that ordained him![1]

Anglican Roots

Many of us have forgotten how the Anglican Church once was an admirable tree rooted in sola fide. This tree once bore plentiful fruit and its branches spread across continents. As it approaches 500 years of existence (It was between the years of 1529 and 1536 when the Acts of Parliament marked the beginning of the Church, so there is still another 20 years until their birthday), the beacon of light which the Anglican Church once was has been dimmed dramatically by the pressures of postmodernism.

For the most part, Evangelicals are unaware of the mighty preachers, theologians, and godly people who have come out of this Reformational strand of Evangelicalism. During the reign of King Edward VI, Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), the first Archbishop of Canterbury, was a leader in the English Reformation. Cranmer was pivotal in turning the Church of England away from Rome and to the teachings of the Reformers. The Anglican Puritans were in fact, the first Puritans. Men like Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, James Ussher, John Newton the hymn writer (Amazing Grace), Charles Simeon, and J.C Ryle were Anglican clergymen and Evangelical preachers who stood firm on the doctrines of grace. Even more so, The Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the greatest documents ever written, was written specifically for the Church of England. Quite possibly, the most well known of all these godly Anglican preachers was George Whitefield. Whitefield in many ways was the product of these Evangelical Anglicans who preceded him.

George Whitefield

The “Great Itinerant” was born in Gloucester in 1714 and was ordained in the Church of England one year after his conversion in 1736. Two years later he would make his first of seven visits to America. It has been said that he became so popular that he was compared to George Washington. He was an American culture hero and his powerful preaching, which he was notorious for, rubbed pulpits the wrong way back in the Motherland which resulted in his banning. This led to his open air preaching ministry which at times had crowds of twenty to thirty thousand people in attendance!

His emphasis in preaching was none other than the saving sovereign grace of God and the experience of the new birth. Like the Reformers before him, he was conscious of original sin and the devastating consequences of our fall in Adam. Moreover, Whitefield rejoiced in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for the elect of God. He was a man who had a high view of the sovereignty of God and a great devotion for holiness. Though he downplayed denominational distinctives to win people to Christ he was nonetheless a staunch Calvinist, even stating, “I embrace the Calvinistic scheme, not because Calvin, but Jesus Christ, has taught it to me.”[2]

Whitefield, unlike many faith teachers and mega-church pastors, never shied away from speaking about sin and never compromised the Gospel of grace. He was truly concerned for lost sinners who were in danger of everlasting damnation in hell. The Congregationalist minister Cornelius Winter, who traveled with Whitefield said, “He seldom if ever got through a sermon without tears.” Whitefield, who preached approximately 18,000 sermons before he died, was truly one of the most passionate evangelists of the Great Awakening. And there is no doubt that these sermons rested upon the foundation of Scripture alone.

Ragsdale

We fast forward three hundred years from Whitefield. Enter one Reverend Katherine Ragsdale who was recently appointed the Episcopal Divinity School’s sixth president and dean. Though she has no direct relation to Simon Episcopius, when one looks at her theology and ethics, there is evidence of the Episcopian Curse (See The Episcopian Curse).

Don’t send that hate mail yet feminists; No, I am not bashing a woman president of a seminary. Nor am I criticizing the seminary, which is an easy target, considering that in September 2006 they offered a blasphemous class on Love and Wisdom - Buddhist Meditations to Illumine Christian Understanding.

I am not even speaking against the fact that she is an avowed lesbian (which is absolutely contrary to Scripture) who conveniently hid her lesbianism all throughout seminary.[3] She expected “the church to have superior moral ethics” and since they didn’t (from her perception) she demonstrated her ethics by lying to get ordained. By the way, is that biblical?

No, I am not even trying to bring up the fact that she was ordained in the early 1990’s by another Anglican, Bishop John Shelby Spong. Spong is supposed to be a Christian yet he challenges the virgin birth, the resurrection and deity of Jesus, and biblical inerrancy. To top that off he believes that humans emerged from the evolutionary soup and that Christianity is not about rescuing the fallen but empowering people to become more human. When in Church history has that ever been considered Christianity?

Finally, I am not even going to divulge into her position on abortion. What good will it due to harp on the fact that she is committed to transporting young girls for abortions even it were illegal. She boasted about one such occasion where she did this for a 15 year-old when testifying on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.[4] Her words and deeds do line up when considering the content of her 2007 sermon where she repeatedly stated that “abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.” From her flawed unchristian worldview she argued that if a woman does not wish to bear a child “there is not a tragedy in sight - only blessing.”[5]

Final Words

I simply am writing to declare the obvious. The magnitude of this descent is appalling. The policies and practices of the liberals in Anglicanism - ordaining homosexual bishops, performing same-sex marriages, championing abortion and denying historic Christianity - are driving away many godly people away from the church and embarrassing Christianity. The renowned J.I. Packer, one of the greatest theologians of modern times, left the Anglican Church of Canada just last year because of these abominations.[6] By no means am I declaring the Anglican Communion beyond repair. Though it might appear that it is a rapidly sinking ship into the dismal waters of disgrace, God still has a remnant of his elect who will not compromise the historic Christian faith as John Shelby Spong, Katherine Ragsdale, and much of the Anglican Communion has.

The immensity of this decline from the days of the Anglican Puritans until now is enormous. Anglican Evangelicals of old held firm to the doctrines of grace and were not afraid to call sin exactly what it is. They did not compromise with the culture nor change historic Christian teachings for relevancy. Yes, Cranmer recanted a few times, but he chose death than ultimate denial of Scripture. So did Ridley, Latimer, and many others. We must earnestly pray that Anglicans, as well as those sitting in Christian churches everywhere, would be convinced of their sins; that they would be awakened from their slumber and that they would seek after the holiness of God in repentance.

As George Whitefield did, so may the people of God, the palingenesis, herald the truth of Scripture preaching to awake the souls of men and praying passionately that God would pour out his Spirit and bring revival! May God use us to bring about an overwhelming sense of his glory and power.

Soli Deo Gloria

Mike Sarkissian

[2] Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield (Crossway Books, 1990) 69.

[3]Bishop's Crusade: Rev. Spong's Support Of Homosexual Priests Divides Episcopalians (Wall Street Journal., Dow Jones & Co. Inc February 20, 1991).

<http://aidsinfobbs.org/articles/wallstj/91/42.txt>

Last accessed April 19, 2009

[4]Pro-Abortion Groups Seek to Defeat Bill to Protect Girls (6/04)

<http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/425/26

Last accessed April 20, 2009

[5] Remarks of the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, Birmingham, AL

<http://www.prochoicetexas.org/news/headlines/200708172.shtml>

Last accessed April 20, 2009

[6] Lillian Kwon, “Theologian Packer quits Anglican Church of Canada.” Christianity Today, April 28, 2008

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/theologian.packer.quits.anglican.church.of.canada/18418.htm

Last accessed April 24, 2009

Warning! This article has nothing to do with generational curses or any of those peculiar doctrines displayed on some Christian television networks. There is substance here…

Relatively little is known about Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), the Dutch theologian who was summoned to the Synod of Dort in 1618. Nonetheless, his contribution to theology and example in church history has had poignant parallels that are observed even to this day.

His given name was Simon Bisschop and he was a professor at the University of Leiden from 1612 – 1619. From that time until his death, demonstrating his adherence to Jacob Arminius teachings, he was one of the leaders of the Remonstrants, i.e. the Arminians. (Arminians are those individuals who deny the absolute sovereignty of God and hold to a Greek libertarian type of freedom. They are not to be confused with the ethnic group known as Armenians, of which I am one of.).

Episcopius attempted to defend libertarian free will before the Synod, but to no avail and was banished into the Spanish Netherlands (until 1626) where he would write and defend his version of Arminianism. He took what Arminius questioned to another level and what was obscure, he made definite. In doing this he quite possibly catapulted Jacob Arminius’ followers into places Arminius himself would never have dared to go.

Though Episcopius was a scholar, he shied away from “doctrine” and stressed holy living. Correct living became more important to him than correct doctrine. The Columbia Encyclopedia states, “His avowed aim was to present Christianity in a practical aspect and to liberate theology from the excessively rigid limitations of theory and ecclesiasticism.”[1]

To Episcopius, he merely sought for the peace and unity of Christians and was willing to conceal any of his views on so called ‘unimportant truths.’[2] This was his way to liberate theology. The “let us not argue but just love one another” banner he waved discloses him as the proto-theological liberal this side of the Reformation. The problem was that what Episcopius thought was ‘unimportant truths’ were foundation stones of historic biblical Christianity.

One area Episcopius compromised in was his Bibliology. He departed from the Reformers method of interpretation (Grammatical, Historical, and Christocentric) which was connected to the Antiochene Church fathers and the apostles themselves. He believed that different views about the Bible each contained a truth that was important in the interpretative process. Therefore, he reasoned that a variety of outlooks on truth were healthy to the church. This might be sufficient when speaking about how we would like the church sanctuary set up or whether contemporary or traditional praise music would be better on Sunday mornings. But to take this and apply it to non-negotiable teachings that distinguish Christianity from other religions is profane.

This approach to the Bible is completely subjective and leads to theological relativism. Moreover, it is absolutely foreign to a proper hermeneutic. When approaching the Bible one must seek to discover what the author was trying to communicate to his original readers. As with all ancient literature, this involves observing the history, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and literary units of context. We are dealing with the very word of God people. Therefore, to simply ‘allow’ for multiple meanings on a text against the dictates of the author cannot be “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

In addition, Episcopius faltered in his Christology as well. Now there are many theologians who are sympathetic to those outside their own denominational lines when it comes to issues such as baptism or church government, but one must never budge nor compromise on a biblical Christology.

While his schoolmaster Arminius held to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, Simon Episcopius deserted this historic bedrock of Christianity. He believed Jesus was eternal God, and through the influence of his friend, the heretic Socinus, who fully rejected the deity of Christ, he was corrupted. Episcopius would sell out and take the middle ground position on Christ. He held that Jesus was fully God but is less God than the Father. This reduction of the divinity of Christ is commonly known as subordinationism. The main form of subordinationism that has taken place historically is that the Son is not equal in his being and attributes as the Father. To hold the position that any person of the Triune God is inferior to another is erroneous.

These grave errors of Episcopius would move many away from the historic teaching on Christ. In addition, they also reveal a significant connection between the history of Arminianism and theological liberalism. History bears witness that Arminianism has led to Arianism, to Socinianism, and to Unitarianism. Each of these ‘isms’ are outside of the circle of biblical Christianity.

Yes, Episcopius sought for peace and unity among Christians, which is very noble and should be commended. However, we must ask the question whether or not peace can actually exist when truth is destroyed. Can we call it peace when it makes war with the Prince of Peace? Are we not to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints?” (Jude 3) The great Puritan Thomas Watson put it down rather nicely, “We must not be so in love with the golden crown of peace, as to pluck off the jewels of truth. Rather let peace go—than truth. The martyrs would rather lose their lives—than let go the truth.”

Now… here we stand today, with ecumenists and theological liberals in front of us, and the Emergent Church Movement creeping up from behind. These groups, being descendants of Episcopius have traces of the Episcopian curse on their hands as they call out for holy living and relevancy at the expense of proper biblical teachings.

“We must ‘repaint’ the Christian faith if we are to win people to Jesus,” the Emergent Church cries out. In the post-modern paint job they give Christianity there is an avoidance of discussing hell and judgment, and an avoidance to confront sin. They reason that preaching repentance is not nice. It might hurt people’s feelings and doesn’t work in getting people to church anymore. They toss out the ancient creeds and historic teachings for pragmatism; sola Scriptura for sola pragmaticas. Thus, they undermine the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.

How many pastors in attempting to pack their churches with people and gain popularity displace historic biblical teachings that our Reformational forefathers fought so earnestly for us to know? They have watered down clear passages that speak about sin and repentance making their Bibliology barren. They have abused verses that proclaim the deity and supremacy of Christ and him crucified, crippling their Christology.

May we stand with all those who have loved biblical truth, all who have gloried in the cross of Christ, and all who have preached a gospel that does not devalue our Savior. As we have this passion for God and for applying his truth, holy living will necessarily follow.

Soli Deo Gloria

When we think of the word “idolatry” our minds tend to conjure up all sorts of images based upon history or what we’ve seen in various media outlets.  Maybe we think of half-naked tribal peoples bowing and burning incense before a large grotesque face carved out of stone.  Or perhaps we imagine some  nubile virgin laying atop an altar as a witch doctor prepares to plunge a twisted blade into her heart while chanting in a strange tongue.  Or maybe we even look to other religions and cults that exist today whose practices seem taboo or foreign to us western occidentals.  The reality, however, is that idolatry hits much closer to home than you might think.  I would go so far as to say that every Christian who has ever walked the earth has engaged in it in one form or another and some or most to great extents.  Surprised?  It is actually one of the major stumbling blocks to living a life that is wholly devoted to God.  We live in a world that is chock full of distractions, where every pleasure and want can be temporarily satisfied merely by tossing a little money it’s way.   Unfortunately, this very often leads to bondage, or at the very least, hinders one from becoming all that he could be for Christ.  In effect, believers stop serving the Lord, and start serving their acquired vice.  So then if idolatry is such a problem amongst Christians, we must identify it for what it is, that we might live as we should.  And to identify it accurately we must turn to the source of all authority, that being the Bible.

Let’s start off in the book of Matthew, specifically in the 6th chapter at verse 24 which reads thus;

²⁴No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

-KJV

So, a few things to look at in this passage.  Firstly, notice the word “serve”.  The original Greek word is douleuõ which is the verb form of doulos which means “slave”.  Being that the verb douleuo is in the “present tense,” we can understand this to mean an ongoing act of being enslaved to a master. Now the word masters is translated from the Greek word kurios, which can be translated a few different ways, all pertaining to and adding strength to the verse. 1) He to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord the possessor and disposer of a thing 2) The owner; one who has control of the person, the master 3) Is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master 4) This title is given to: God, the Messiah.  What is revealed to us then, is a picture of a slave torn between serving, or being enslaved to, two masters.

Skipping over the center of the passage, (we’ll get to that shortly), let’s look at the last sentence in which both masters are identified.  First, we see that the first Master is God, which should be without need of further explanation.  The second master, however, is a somewhat strange word that should be exposited in order to fully understand why Jesus used that specific word and form.  The word mammon is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word mamona meaning “wealth” or “property”.  The root of this word in both Aramaic and Hebrew let us know that the word mammon used here is to mean the confidence and reliance upon worldly wealth, property, or basically anything under the sun that one might take stock in.

The question is now begged, “Can one serve God fully, yet at the same time, put his stock and trust in worldly things?”.  Jesus answers emphatically in the negative.  We are told that he (the slave) “will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”  Jesus seems to be implying that there are only options for the two extremes; that there is no middle ground.  This is to impress a couple important points to the hearer.  First, the nature of slavery is a full-time commitment.  It would be absolutely impossible for a slave to serve two masters.  Remember, this is not the same thing as having two jobs, where you work awhile at one and then go to the other.  Slavery means that you are at the beck and call of your master at all times.  If you are busy with a task for one master, it would be impossible to be at the immediate call of the other master. Therefore, you cannot be the doulos of two masters.

The second point, stemming from the first, that is made is the idea that partial servitude is no servitude at all.  Partial servitude to God is full servitude to mammon, which is rendered as no servitude to God.  In other words, God demands everything that we are.  We should be able to give up anything in this world at the drop of a hat for His sake and not think twice about it.  After all, nothing exists in this world that was not from within God, as He is the originator of all things and is sovereign over all things.  Therefore, it is silly to think that you can actually own anything at all in this world, let alone put your confidence in those things.  And so from this verse we can glean that whatever it is that we put first before God, whether it be money, work, various sinful habits, hobbies, family, etc. (basically anything that causes us to not fully serve Him as a slave to a master), can constitute idolatry.

Now that we understand how God defines idolatry, we are left with a decision.  Either we serve God fully, or we don’t.  Let’s look now into the Old Testament to the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal where he asks a question that all of us need to weigh and answer. We will be looking at 1 Kings chapter 18 verse 21.

At this point in the story, we see that Israel, currently under the rule of King Ahab, has fallen into the worship of Baal, the principal deity of the surrounding regions, and forsaken the commandments of the Lord.  Along comes Elijah, the prophet of God, to issue a challenge to those that would side with the worshipers of Baal.  He commands that all of Israel and all the prophets of Baal be gathered together so that the true God of Israel might be revealed.  And so we pick up in verse 21;

21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

-KJV

What a piercing question this is!  To answer this question is to be a witness against yourself!  We already know from the verse in Matthew that you may only serve one master and that there is no such thing as “partial discipleship”, so, if the Lord be God, follow Him!  If you choose mammon, then it is your god, and follow it.  Be honest with yourself and look with clarity into your heart.  Are you willing to let go of everything for the sake of following the Lord? Are you willing to give up the lyrically degenerate music, the internet porn, the excessive booze, the girlfriend or boyfriend that’s dragging you down, or anything else the Lord might find offensive or unbecoming of His own?  As a perfect example of the attitude we should take when it comes to clearing the junk and mung from our lives, let’s look at King Josiah and what he did to bring about spiritual reform in a pagan Israel.  This is 2 Kings chapter 23 verses 4-20.  I know this is pretty much the whole chapter, but in it’s entirety we see that nothing less than a total eradication of sin and spiritual debris will do.

4  Then the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel.

5  He did away with the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah and in the surrounding area of Jerusalem, also those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations and to all the host of heaven.

6  He brought out the Asherah from the house of the LORD outside Jerusalem to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and ground it to dust, and threw its dust on the graves of the common people.

7  He also broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women were weaving hangings for the Asherah.

8  Then he brought all the priests from the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba; and he broke down the high places of the gates which were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one’s left at the city gate.

9  Nevertheless the priests of the high places did not go up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers.

10  He also defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire for Molech.

11  He did away with the horses which the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the official, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.

12  The altars which were on the roof, the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, the king broke down; and he smashed them there and threw their dust into the brook Kidron.

13  The high places which were before Jerusalem, which were on the right of the mount of destruction which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the sons of Ammon, the king defiled.

14  He broke in pieces the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherim and filled their places with human bones.

15  Furthermore, the altar that was at Bethel and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin, had made, even that altar and the high place he broke down Then he demolished its stones, ground them to dust, and burned the Asherah.

16 Now when Josiah turned, he saw the graves that were there on the mountain, and he sent and took the bones from the graves and burned them on the altar and defiled it according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these things.

17 Then he said, “What is this monument that I see?” And the men of the city told him, “It is the grave of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things which you have done against the altar of Bethel.”

18 He said, “Let him alone; let no one disturb his bones.” So they left his bones undisturbed with the bones of the prophet who came from Samaria.

19 Josiah also removed all the houses of the high places which were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made provoking the LORD; and he did to them just as he had done in Bethel.

20 All the priests of the high places who were there he slaughtered on the altars and burned human bones on them; then he returned to Jerusalem.

-NASB

And there you have it.  King Josiah did not leave any remnant of the pagan influence standing or alive.  He engaged in complete, remorseless, and total destruction of everything that was holding Israel back from the Lord’s blessing.  We too must be absolutely merciless and without regret when it comes to purging ourselves of foreign masters that would vie for our loyalties.  We must serve God with a single-eyed devotion.  In our society we are faced with innumerable distractions that would seek to take our hearts away from our Lord and spiritually cripple us.  Let us be ever vigilant in guarding our hearts and minds that we might not “play the harlot”.  The line in the sand was drawn eons ago between the Lord God and the prince of this world.  Whose side are you on?

SEB

(Quotes from John Knox are taken from Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559).

Now, let’s go smack dab into the middle of the Reformation. Enjoy!

On 10 April 1547, in order to escape possible arrest as a heretic, Knox and his students entered the Castle of St. Andrews, where he continued his teaching duties. Within a few weeks of Knox’s arrival in the castle, the leaders of the rebel group, at the suggestion of their minister John Rough, invited Knox to be Rough’s associate.

On 31 July 1547, the garrison at the castle surrendered to the French, and Knox was condemned to the galleys. During his time as a galley slave, his masters attempted without success to force Knox and his fellow Scots to abandon the Reformed faith. Released from the galleys in 1549, Knox went to England, where he became rector of the parish at Berwick.

His sermons there reflected his growing antagonism toward the Roman Catholic Mass, and as a result of his preaching, Knox was summoned by the bishop of Durham to defend his views that the Roman Catholic Mass was idolatry.

On April 4, 1550, Knox said: “This day I do appear in your presence, honourable audience, to give a reason why so constantly I do affirm the Mass to be, and at all times to have been, idolatry and abomination before God.” Similar to the famous line from Martin Luther, Knox said, “For unless I evidently prove my intent by God’s holy scriptures, I will recant it as wicked doctrine, and confess myself most worthy of grievous punishment.”

Knox began with acknowledging the people’s perception of the Mass as great, holy, and honoring of God. But in his usual scathing way he likened the “great advantage” Demetrius gained in his move against Paul with the great gain the priests have had with the Mass. In an attempt to further awaken the audience of their idolatry, he pictured how shocked the Diana worshippers might have felt when they heard that her honor was in jeopardy when the gospel was preached in Ephesus. But prior to delivering his arguments, John Knox opened in prayer:

“O Lord eternal! move and govern my tongue to speak the verity, and the hearts of thy people to understand and obey the same.”

His defense was presented in two syllogisms, some additional arguments, and some final remarks. The first syllogism was:

The Mass is Idolatry.

All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry.

The Mass is invented by the brain of man, without any commandment of God;

Therefore it is idolatry.

Knox began in his classic hard-hitting style saying, “For probation of the first part, I will adduce none of the Gentiles’ sacrifices, in which, notwithstanding, was less abomination than has been in the Mass; but of God’s scriptures I will bring forth the witnesses of my words.”

He used the common knowledge of the Gentiles’ idolatrous sacrifices and placed the Mass greater in extent on the scale of abomination. He then moved to the example of Samuel calling Saul foolish, quoting Samuel from 1 Samuel 13 saying, “thou hast not observed the precepts of the Lord, which he commanded thee.”

Knox gives the illustration of Saul’s offense, pointing out that it was not a blatant, gross, heinous crime like adultery or murder, but that it was done in what would seem to be “good intent.” He shows how Saul offered burnt offerings to appease God because Samuel was not present to do so. Enemies were approaching, Samuel was not present, so Saul went ahead and offered burnt and peace offerings to God (although Samuel was the principal prophet and high priest). But since Saul was not of the tribe of Levi, and since only the tribe of Levi was told to make such sacrifices, Saul’s act was a “most high” abomination before God, “as the punishment appears.”

Knox said, “Consider well that no excuses are admitted by God: [such] as that his enemies approached, and his own people departed from him; he could not have a lawful minister, and gladly would have been reconciled to God, and consulted with him of the end and chance of that journey; and therefore he, the king, anointed by God’s commandment, makes sacrifice. But none of all these [excuses] were admitted by God; but Saul was pronounced foolish and vain. For no honouring knows God, nor will [he] accept, without it having the express commandment of his own word to be done in all points. And no commandment was given unto the king to make or offer unto God any manner of sacrifice: which, because he took upon him to do, he and his posterity were deprived from all honours in Israel.”

Remember, John Knox is defending his view that the Roman Catholic Mass is idolatry. Boldly, he uses this example of Saul (and another one) and says to them: “Disobedience to God’s voice is not only when man does wickedly contrary to the precepts of God, but also when of good zeal, or good intent (as we commonly speak), man does anything to the honour or service of God not commanded by the express word of God, as in the matter plainly may be espied.”

Knox uses another example of God’s furious wrath when sacrifices are made to him apart from what he has commanded. He uses Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron and their offering of “strange fire” as recorded in Leviticus 10:1-3. Knox explains that the strange fire “was a common fire, and not of that fire which God had commanded to burn day and night upon the altar of burnt sacrifice, which only ought to have been offered unto God.” Just as the audience is picturing God destroying these two men, John Knox shouts, “O bishops! you should have kept this fire: at morning and at evening ought you to have laid fagots thereupon; yourselves ought to have cleansed and carried away the ashes; but God shall behold.”

Knox uses this example to show that Nadab and Abihu the principle priests next to Aaron, their father, were “neither in adultery, covetousness, nor desire of worldly honour, but of a good zeal and simple intent were making sacrifice ­ desiring no profit of the people thereby, but to honour God and to mitigate his wrath. And yet in the doing of this selfsame act and sacrifice were they consumed away with fire. Whereof it is plain, that neither the preeminence of the person or man that makes or sets up any religion, without the express commandment of God, nor yet the intent whereof he does the same, is accepted before God.”

After a number of biblical arguments, Knox ends part one of his arguments saying, “…I think, the first part of my argument sufficiently proved: which is, that all worshipping, honouring, or service of God invented by the brain of man (in the religion of God), without his own express commandment, is idolatry.”

He then goes on to part two, which is, that the Mass is an invention of man. After discussing some objections that assert that the Mass comes from the Hebrew “Missa,” Knox goes on to dismiss them on the grounds that they lack evidence. He then attempts to prove that the Mass came from man, beginning with Pope Sixtus.

Pointing out that the Mass allows the eating of the bread but restricts the drinking of the cup to the clergy, Knox says, “you permitted all to eat of the bread, but of the cup you reserved to you ­ clipped in the crowns [heads] and anointed upon the fingers. And in pain of your anathema ­ of your great cursing ­ you forbade that any laity presume to drink thereof. But tell me, Papists, were the apostles clipped and besmeared as you are? Or will you say that the congregation of the Corinthians were Papist priests? I think you will not. And yet they all drank of the cup, like as they ate of the bread. Mark, brethren, that of Christ’s own words they make alteration.”

John Knox, apparently feeling like he’s beating a dead horse after several lengthy arguments closes part two of the first syllogism saying, “I think it is in vain to labour further to prove the rest of this abominable action to be invented and devised by the foolish brain of man, and so it cannot be denied to be idolatry.” He decides to move to the second syllogism from here wherein he aims to prove the Mass is an abomination before God.

Around six years ago or so, my wife and I were invited to attend the wedding of one of her then co-workers.  While there, I had the express “privilege” of sitting down with the officiating priestess before the ceremony and asking some questions of her regarding her beliefs.  She told me that at one point she had attended a Christian church, but found it to be too exclusive for her liking.  She told me that Christians were too judgmental and that the traditional Christian church was “just not for me”.  ”I did not feel comfortable there”, she said.  She then proceeded to tell me that she got involved in her current church because “it was right for me”.  And basically, what her church was, was a universalist-ultra-liberal-all roads lead to Rome- let’s incorporate mysticism and not speak to sin kind of church.  The kind of church that believes the Bible to be just another tome of fallible wisdom in the long line of religious writings passed down from antiquity, to be used alongside the writings of every other prophet who have since walked the earth.  Notice the prolific use of the words “I” and “me” in her explanation of her divergence from orthodox Christianity.  Obviously, her view of truth was being distorted by the lens of her own desires.  She was doing nothing short of inventing her own god based upon what she felt was right.  In other words, in her world, God does not make the rules and establish law, she does.

So let’s look at the logic behind this method of truth-seeking by means of an analogy.  Let’s say that I really like sharks.  No, I mean I REALLY like sharks.  In fact, I do nothing short of love them.  I feel an affinity for them and consider them my friends.  And surely, since I love them and consider them my closest friends, they would not hurt me.  So I decide to go for a swim off the coast of San Francisco in a nice shiny black wet-suit.  And I love my shark friends SO much, that I even bring a big bag of fish guts and spread it around in the water for them as I wait for them to come to me so I can pet and cuddle them.  When the sharks think they’ve come upon a wounded seal and start tearing the limbs from my body one by one and I start to fade from massive blood loss, am I surprised?

The point of this silly analogy is that no matter how much I desire something or wish a particular thing to be true, that desire has absolutely no power over the absolute truth.  And so, like the priestess I met at that wedding, will she be surprised when she is standing before the Judgment Seat of God and He tells her to depart from His presence?  Will she be able to say, “But I really believed that there was no Hell.  I really believed that Mohammed and Buddha were right, too.  I thought when Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father but by Me”, it was just a suggestion.  I was really sincere!”  No, I don’t think that that will get her out of the immense pickle she has gotten herself into.  The truth is just not relative.

This type of self-serving “theology” is becoming ever more prominent in society today.  It is the idea that the Scriptures are not to be held on the same level as an inward revelation of truth.  In many cases, the Scriptures are actually ignored altogether and referred to as either archaic or out of touch.  The Greeks, in days gone by, called those people who were considered to possess this inward divinity, “Enthusiasts”.  Obviously, it is where we get our word “enthusiasm” today and describes those who’s emotions and passions drive them in all they do.  Certainly, there is a place for enthusiasm, but never at the expense of lessening or doing away with the very Words of God.  As I write this article, I feel enthusiastic about it.  I feel impassioned regarding the message behind it.  If I did not, I would most likely be leaving you with much less impact and substance, assuming I would have started it in the first place.  And so, let’s be enthusiastic about the Word of God and it’s infallible truth.  Only when we understand that the Scriptures are the ONLY authority for discerning truth, can enthusiasm be applied properly.

SEB

Firstly, let me start off by saying that the original intent behind this writing was more of an effort to collect my thoughts into one place.  I find that my method of mentally filing things away frequently lends itself to lost ideas, and so it behooves me to record them as they come.  In contemplating the things written herein, I became aware of a deep conviction that has been troubling me for some time now.  This work was, as stated above, intended for myself, but I thought it might also prove helpful to others.  And so I have compiled this letter.

What has been troubling me over the past few years is the state of the body of Christ, particularly among the Evangelical circles.  We have become weak, lazy, self-entitled, and unfaithful to our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. This letter will seek to address the reasons for this lapse, seek to offer loving reproof, and will hopefully incite change in those that require it.

As a disclaimer, I am not a theologian, nor am I a particularly wise man.  I apologize in advance for anything I say that might prove false.  I do, however have a great love for God and strong desire to discern spiritual truth.  I will not delve into the realm of theology except when it is helpful in making a point, as it goes beyond the scope of this writing.  This letter is written for the Christian who is under grace through faith in Christ and should be read as such.  I will assume that everyone who is reading this has an accurate understanding of the Gospel and what it means to truly be born again.

“I am what I am by the grace of God.”

2. Admonishments and Exhortations

As I have already said, I see a big problem in the church today.  The symptoms are many and they all point to a great sickness among the body of Christ.  As Christians, we are called to be set apart, to be sanctified, to be separate from the world.  Yet, in a 1999 study, the Barna Research Group concluded;

“Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.”

Certainly this should not be! But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen Christians acting just like everybody else in the world. When I think of things I’ve done or said in the past or when I think of the cowardice I’ve shown in the face of adversity, I am sincerely ashamed.  Take a look at what Jesus says in Matthew 5:13-16;

13″You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14″You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;  15nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  16Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

I see a lot of dim lights these days.  Instead of putting up a fight, many today are more apt to capitulate, trading the truth that has been imparted to them for worldly comfort.  Christians these days seem to find it very easy to live with one foot in and one foot out saying, “I’ll follow Jesus as long as it doesn’t interrupt my life too much.”  As the great Augustine prayed in the days before his conversion;

“God, give me chastity and continence - but not just now.”

As ridiculous as that prayer may sound, many of us pray that same prayer every day.  It just might sound more like, “God, I really want to follow you and get up for church, but this bed is just so warm and I’m just so tired.”  That may sound simplistic and mundane, but I know I’ve said that to myself many times. Imagine, I have the chance to go fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ, revel in the Lord, and learn the very words of the living God, yet I will sit in bed and probably not even crack my Bible that day.  Again, that may seem like a mundane example, but stop and think about the seriousness of that situation.  How can we call Him Lord, when we won’t do the simplest of commandments such as gathering with the brethren or reading our Bibles?  Let alone trying to discern His will for our life and carry out our calling as a slave would to his master.  We have become entirely lazy and self-absorbed.  We pull God out of the closet when we need Him, and stick Him back in when things are going well.  Remember, we are here for God.  He is not here for us.

Part and parcel to this is the seeming use of Christianity as some sort of vehicle for self-fulfillment.  I am not saying that fulfillment is not the result of our belief in Christ, it surely is.  What I am speaking to is the disturbing trend of weeding out anything that doesn’t fit with our agenda or view.  We see extreme versions of this thinking all through history in the likes of Marcian of the 2nd century, or Thomas Jefferson of the 18th.   Men have been twisting the Bible or cutting parts out ever since the beginning of the church to fit their own views.  Certainly though, that type of flagrant heresy is the exception rather than the rule; but, what about the churches that never speak of Hell?  What of the churches who never use the word “repent” in their Gospel message?  What of the churches who don’t tell folks to count the cost?  If our church leaders can’t stand up for the Word of God, how can we expect their parishioners to stand up to the world? C. H. Spurgeon said it well when he spoke these words;

“Avoid a sugared gospel as you would shun sugar of lead. Seek the gospel which rips up and tears and cuts and wounds and hacks and even kills, for that is the gospel that makes alive again. And when you have found it, give good heed to it. Let it enter into your inmost being. As the rain soaks into the ground, so pray the Lord to let his gospel soak into your soul.”

More often than in the past it seems that Christians attend church for the sake of “finding spirituality”. Why is it that most Christians are more willing to read The Purpose Driven Life,  (which has a weak gospel message but tells you that you’re important), than read the Bible, the only writing that has any authority whatsoever?  That, my friend, is a huge problem in itself.

WE ARE NOT READING OUR BIBLES!

I wanted to make that crystal clear.  We live in a world where we have access to numerous translations of the Word, access to great expositors, and access to books that serve to explain the Bible itself. We have a wealth of knowledge at our very fingertips.  We have absolutely no excuse for not reading the Word of God!  I find it sad that the early church, though only possessing fragments of what we have today, were willing to die at the hands of the brutal Roman Empire to call themselves Christians.  And we, who are so abundantly endowed with the Word of God and who have freedom of religion, shrink back in fear of being labeled “Christian” that we might offend a coworker or make that nice atheist uncomfortable.  Christianity is a religion of peace with God, not peace with man.  This can be seen in Matthew 10:32-39 which reads;

32″Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.  33″But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.  34″(Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  35″For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;  36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.  37″He who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.  38″And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.  39”He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”

We need to take up our cross and follow our Lord no matter where it leads.  This is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of obedience.  As Christ was obedient to the will of the Father even unto death on a cross, we are to follow that same example.  We are to be obedient.  Paul likens this obedience to the relationship of a slave to his master in his epistle to the church in Rome.  We see this thought in Romans 6:16-18;

16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?  17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,  18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

What we read here is that we have two options.  We are either slaves to sin or we are slaves to obedience.  There is no in-between.  We are slaves either way.  A faithful slave will carry out his duty before his master and will fulfill that which is required of him regardless of how much it puts him out. There is no question.  There is no complaint.  There is no idea of doing it some other way than that which the master has commanded.  How often we question God when we don’t like something that has happened to us, or when we are called to service, or when we don’t like some particular doctrine.  By what divine right have we to question He who created the Heavens and the Earth by speaking them into existence?  How utterly arrogant!

Perhaps the problem is that we don’t fully comprehend the nature and ramifications of sin.  Again, this goes back partly to the problem in the pulpit (though I do not seek to lessen the responsibility of the parishioner in finding these things out through the reading of the Word).  What we do know from the Bible is that sin is an affront to God.  Sin is in direct violation to His nature.  In fact, so serious is the problem of sin, that the redemption of mankind through the God-Man Jesus is counted as an even greater work of God than the creation. We are not to tolerate any sin!  Whether that sin is of us or we are sitting around laughing at some lewd joke told at work around the water cooler.  If God does not tolerate sin, how can we, who are His children, tolerate it?  For us to tolerate or commit sin in any form would be contrary to our profession in Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I am not preaching sinless perfection as that is wholly unbiblical, but we are told to uphold the law even though we are not under it.  We will fail.  We will fall.  Hence, the death of Jesus on the Roman cross.  We are to strive for godliness and holiness through the strength of the Holy Spirit.  This is the process of sanctification to be completed upon our exit from this material world into the embrace of our Savior.

I think that too often people hear that all to common phrase, “God loves you and has a plan for your life.” Well, that’s fine and all, but it is certainly incomplete in relating God’s will for one’s life.  If one hears that enough, without the need for repentance and without the truth of impending judgment, how is one expected to develop a healthy fear of the Lord? How about, “You are a wretched and vile sinner who actively rebels against God, by which whom you are deemed an enemy, and you must repent and place your faith in the blood of Jesus who died and rose again and now sits at the right hand of the Father.  Only then will you be made at peace with God.  Only then will your life have any meaning.” I am sure that the pews would probably not be filled as full, but those who would be saved would end up with a much more accurate view of the relationship between God and man and might take their “walk” a little more seriously.

3.  Parting Words

My brethren, I sincerely hope that this letter helps encourage you to persevere and to fight the good fight. In writing this I found that I was cutting into my own heart and exposing the errors in my own walk, but that affliction is good and should be heeded as a sage.

It was my purpose in addressing a few problems in the church that I feel have done great damage to the body of Christ, but ones that are easily remedied.  It would be a great thing indeed if Christians really started reading their Bibles everyday and spent everyday in prayer.  The Bible tells us that the giving of our lives to God is our “reasonable service.”  That’s all we have, but yet, what less could we give to our Lord and Redeemer?  Has He not earned our lives?  Does He not have every right to every part of our lives?  I think we could at least study the scriptures and invest more of our time in prayer, rather than in this world.  For doing so is merely “chasing the wind”.

Sincerely yours in Jesus Christ our Lord,

SEB