On Dispensationalism

This afternoon I spent several hours studying dispensationalism. I feel sort of guilty for not having studied it before, because I have heard of it, and realized that I did not know exactly what it was. After my research, I conclude that I had some right ideas of what it was, and that some who ascribe to “dispensationalism” would say that there was nothing more to the theological system than what I already knew. They would be wrong.

I’ve decided not to call myself a dispensationalist because of the “extra” doctrines I did not know, but for which, I suspect, the theologians I respect have not respected the system. Some of the more basic tenets make sense to me, and have been part of my theology for ten years (which is saying something). For example, I believe that God’s plan for Israel is not yet finished, and that some Old Testament promises to Israel remain to be fulfilled. My interpretation of eschatology is literal and contains a pretribulational rapture and literal posttribulational millennium. Finally and least surely held is a fancy that God is glorifying Himself through history by proving through as many different dispensations imaginable that man cannot achieve righteousness or even a pleasant world on his own.

For some reason I have encountered many self-professed “Christians” who have very obscure theology. Fortunately God has given me a sure foundation, a logical brain, and a willingness to search things out. As a freshman, I researched free will and secular humanistic transcendentalism. (In other words, the popular beliefs described in That Hideous Strength by CS Lewis, and now promoted by atheists and left-wing activists who want to turn the world into machinery – remind you of the apocalyptic time represented in The Matrix?) Soon I was refuting Sabbath-legalism; defending the Trinity, working out a comprehensive eschatology, studying the applicability of Jewish dietary and feast laws, grasping security of salvation; refuting the Search for the Historical Jesus Peter Jennings special, head coverings, seeker-sensitive movements; investigating house churches, and understanding predestination/Calvinism. Most of these are responses to strangers. Honestly, a woman once began a conversation about the impending judgment of God at a thrift store! I have a file in my room of literature people have given me explaining their newly-discovered, minority-accepted doctrines. As a result, I am so grateful, I have a faith and theology that doesn’t get shaken much. God’s grace is in all of this. Without being forced into study by these confrontations, I wouldn’t have any of this knowledge.

I want to quote George MacDonald here because I was reading The Highlander’s Last Song late last night and just wanted to share the experience: “Ian was one of those blessed few who doubt many things by virtue of a larger faith – causing consternation among those of smaller faith who wrongly see such doubts as signs of unbelief.” I think my friends and family worry sometimes. Apparently the doctrines I consider are adopted into my theology about half of the time (if you include defending doctrines like the Trinity and eschatology). Let that reassure you if you will.

Originally I was going to ask my blog readers (may I hail those from Korea, Ghana, Australia, Canada, the United States, and any other countries I missed!) for their understanding on dispensationalism, but Google had a wealth of information that seemed clear and reliable, though varied. So now I’m going to share what I learned. In some cases I am dealing point by point with the arguments presented to me this morning.

What is dispensationalism? Here I have compiled the best explanations Google provided, and their links, so you can look up more information.

“Now, there are those who see seven dispensations. They see the dispensation of innocence, when God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden and God relating to man there in the garden in man's innocence. Then they see the second dispensation, (I forget what they call it), but it is from the time of Adam's sin unto the time of Noah, in which they see the third dispensation of the government of God which lasted until the time of the law, which they see the fourth dispensation of the law. And the fifth dispensation of Jesus here; the sixth dispensation, the dispensation of grace; the seventh dispensation, the millennial reign.” – Chuck Smith

“The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations. The responsibilities God gives to man does change however.” - End Times.org

'Though it may not be spelled out so explicitly, the [Scofield] footnote to Matthew 5:2 in effect says that sinners during the millennium will be saved, not by the blood, merits, and grace of Christ, but by their obedience to the beatitudes, which are “pure law.” But this contradicts the universal proposition of Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” The Scripture, quite the reverse of Dispensationalism, asserts that there is just one way of salvation. True enough, the divine plan in all its completeness, as Paul said in Ephesians 3:5, “was not made known unto the sons of men in other ages as it is now revealed to his apostles and prophets by the Spirit”; but Paul’s fuller doctrinal explanation is precisely the same covenant that was less fully revealed in Genesis 3:15— “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” ' – Arthur Pink

Other semi-dispensationalists (like me) are John MacArthur and Dr. Henry Morris.

In Ephesians 3:2, what is “dispensation”? Does it mean ‘house rules,’ like in Poker, so that Monday is deuces wild, Tuesday is threes are wild; and if you come with a three on Monday, you’ll be excluded from winning? (Application to spiritual things is that some Dispensationalists say that Israelites were saved by keeping the law before Christ, and that in the tribulation or millennium, that will be the standard again. I was told that if a post-rapture believer then sins, breaks the ten commandments, he is doomed forever.) The Greek here for “dispensation” is oikonomia – "management of a household, administration, stewardship." This stewardship was given to Paul. Ephesians 3:2 couples it with the prepositional phrase, “of grace,” and it was given to Paul to the Ephesians. (That’s as literal as I can make the Greek.)

What is the ‘mystery’ in verse 4 of Ephesians 3? Keep reading until you get to verse 6. Also read Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:18-29. These verses explain that the mystery was God's inclusion of Gentiles into the one body of the redeemed. In English we think of "mystery" as a puzzle not yet put together, the secret of a magician’s trick, or the unsolved riddle of a mystery novel. In the Greek it meant something that used to be hidden but is now revealed. A pastor once explained that the word was originally used to describe the tactic of only revealing a military strategy/orders at the last minute, to keep it a secret as long as possible. Hebrews addresses perhaps a reason for the mystery: Hebrews 11:39-40, "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

Ephesians 3:5 says the mystery is now revealed to “apostles and prophets.” Who are they? There is no indication the text means anything but what it says. “Apostles” generally referred to those left of the Twelve, but also included Paul and some other early believers. Apostleship and prophecy are both listed as spiritual gifts. Though the dispensationalist who spoke to me this morning said that “apostles and prophets” referred to the young pastors and missionaries (like Timothy) whom Paul was teaching via this letter, note that verse 5 says not that Paul was revealing the mystery to them, but that they mystery was revealed to “his” (God’s) holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

The parable of the 10 virgins speaks to accepting salvation before Jesus returns unexpectedly. It is a parable, and does not address either losing salvation or ecclesiology. Nor is it particularly talking about the church. Get caught up in the story; find the moral of the story; and apply it to Christianity. Parables are not allegories.

Jesus was said to have taught on the conduct expected of Jews in the millennial kingdom (thus the emphasis on the “kingdom gospel,” as supposedly separate from “Paul’s” gospel of grace). Since Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and they should have known better from the prophecies, dispensationalists would say the church (and grace with it) has been parenthetically inserted until God resumes His everlasting covenant and law with Israel. However, Colossians 1, Romans 9-11, and Ephesians (the passages submitted as evidence) rather speak of the Church as the one body in which the Jews and Gentiles are unified in reconciliation to God until in the last days God continues his plan specifically for Israel (see Revelation 7).

Ephesians 2:11-20, "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

Ephesians 4:4-7, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

1 Corinthians 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Law was not the means of salvation even in the Mosaic “dispensation.” Being under the Law did not disqualify David from salvation when he committed adultery. He repented again, and was forgiven. Psalms 51:1-2, 17 - " Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin… The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

Is grace taught by Jesus? Luke 7:42-43 records Jesus’ use of a derivative of the common word (charis) for grace. He also talked about grace without using the word: “And I give them eternal life…” or “He who hears my words and believes on Him who sent me has everlasting life.” John focuses on this. Eternal life was a gift. Jesus often pointed out that the “good works” and law-keeping that had become Judaism were insufficient for salvation. No man was perfectly good, but he tried to stack up his ideas of goodness against the perfect law of God, who also sees and judges the heart. Still living in the Law system so that He could fulfill it, Jesus consistently pointed out the inadequacy of the Law or of man to keep it.

Now that you understand that dispensationalists believe the Law will apply again during the Millennium or tribulation, let me try to explain their take on Hebrews. They (or the man to whom I spoke this morning) would say that Hebrews was written as a manual for life after the reinstatement of the Israel dispensation. It was written to the Jews, and so accordingly is separate from any instructions to the Church. From this they argue that Hebrews 6 does not teach that Christians today can lose their salvation (which would be inconsistent with the rest of the epistles), but that the Jews can.

I love Hebrews 6. My favorite part is where it exhorts Christians to move beyond the basics. To me this refutes the seeker-sensitive “conversion”-driven style of church. I need fed the meat of the word, not just milk. Several years ago my pastor taught on the second part of the chapter, the controversial part, which at first glance seems to have nothing to do with verses 1-3. But verse 4 begins, “For,” so obviously the author felt he supplying the reasoning behind those first verses as he continued. I remember that my pastor was arguing that here in Hebrews 6 there is evidence that the author makes an aside, discussing non-Christians who have been among the Church and witnessed God’s saving power, but never actually accepted the gospel for themselves. His Bible interpretation for this passage seemed forced into the mold of his preconceived theology; he was proof-texting much like he did when justifying female leadership in the church. So even though I believe no one once saved can lose their salvation (you did not earn your way in; you cannot earn your way out), I went searching for a more solid exposition of Hebrews 6.

What I found was a lot of controversy and stretched interpretations, and one explanation that made perfect sense to me. It was provided by Charles Spurgeon (a genius preacher, and eloquent!). PLEASE read the whole thing. I’m including the following two quotations just to summarize. Truly. His sermon transcript ties the entire passage together.

“In order to make them persevere, if possible, he shows them that if they do not, they must, most certainly be lost; for there is no other salvation but that which God has already bestowed on them, and if that does not keep them, carry them forward, and present them spotless before God, there cannot be any other. For it is impossible, he says, if ye be once enlightened, and then fall away, that ye should ever be renewed again unto repentance…

“Well, there never has been a case of it yet, and therefore I cannot describe it from observation; but I will tell you what I suppose it is. To fall away, would be for the Holy Spirit entirely to go out of a man—for his grace entirely to cease; not to lie dormant, but to cease to be—for God, who has begun a good work, to leave off doing it entirely—to take his hand completely and entirely away, and say, "There, man! I have half saved thee; now I will damn thee." That is what falling away is.” – CH Spurgeon

Compare to the logic-based argument Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15, where he was not saying that Jesus did not rise, but for the sake of argument posed a “what if”: "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

My conclusion is that God always works for His glory. God does have a special plan to use Israel in the world just as He has a special plan to use you and me, except that He published His plan for Israel in His eternal Word. Man is never able to save himself. God has always saved men only by His unfaltering grace! His grace cannot let a man fall from His hand, so there is no loss of salvation.

To God be all glory.

Where HIS Name is Qara

1 Chronicles 13:6 –

“And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, to Kirjath Jearim,

which belonged to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God the LORD,

who dwells between the cherubim, where His name is proclaimed.”

The verse reentered my mind while I was praying tonight. I read 1 Chronicles 13 without particular insight for my devotions this evening, but was applying the language of verse 14 to pray for someone: “The ark of God remained with the family of Obed-Edom in his house three months. And the LORD blessed the house of Obed-Edom and all that he had.”

Why would God bless a house just because the ark was there? That sounds like the theology of Raiders of the Lost Ark, not the “no graven image” God of the Bible. Note that this final verse of chapter 13 tells us that the Lord blessed the house, not “the ark blessed the house.” Like many things, God did it for His glory. He showered grace on the house of Obed-Edom for His name’s sake. Anyone who knew the God of Israel would understand that without His presence dwelling among the cherubim of the mercy seat, the gold-overlaid box would mean nothing.

As I was reflecting that God must have graced Obed-Edom for the glory of His name, I remembered that there was something about God’s name earlier in the chapter, in the description of the ark: “…where His name is proclaimed.” God’s name is proclaimed through the ark’s presence. Or is that what it means? Did I have the wording right? First I grabbed a book-light to check my Bible again. Frustrated at the lack of footnote (like any commentary, my study Bible never has notes on hard questions) explaining the phrase in verse 6, I turned on my lamp, pulled out my laptop, and at a weary 12:45 AM, logged on to Blue Letter Bible to check the Hebrew.

It turns out the word for “Proclaimed” is qara. Different translators have given this verse different, particular meanings through the English word they chose. I wish I could just keep the Hebrew, because I am not sure the author meant us to choose definitions. This is why I love studying the original language. Has it ever occurred to the translators that the original author may have intended all the facets of meaning in one word?

Let’s take them one at a time. First, my New King James translated qara “proclaimed.” In this sense the ark could be the banner of God’s presence. Through God’s power and blessing surrounding the ark, God’s name is proclaimed among the nations. The ark was central to Israel’s worship, and the Name was central to what was being worshiped.

Another definition is “give name to.” The ark is where God’s name is given, or imparted unto His people. Remember Moses’ worry that the people would ask the name of the God who sent him? When you have the ark, the answer is right there. The ark also represents the people of Israel bearing God’s name as they bear His presence and the ark (2 Chronicles 7:14). In the Lord of the Rings, Treebeard the Ent says his name would be long because it is descriptive of his character and experience. Such is true of the God of the Bible, His name ever expanding as His people come to know Him through His revelation and their experience. God’s works and nature could be recited, called out (think of the caller for a square dance or bingo game).

What did the people experience? Let’s look at more definitions of qara. The onomatopoetic (a word that describes its sound) word is a cry for help. In this sense, the ark was a place where the name of the Lord was cried unto. Atop the ark was the mercy seat, the recognizable portion with the cherubim. To this the high priest was supposed to yearly bring blood, interceding that the mercy of God would cover their failure to keep the law (which was, as I must credit Francis Schaeffer for pointing out to me) housed in the ark perfectly fitted beneath the mercy seat, the seat of propitiation. The fact that the rebellious Israelites remained in existence was proof that God had heard their call for mercy.

And finally, perhaps in refutation of the “Raiders” theology, maybe we could read it to mean that where the people proclaim and call upon God’s name, there He dwells between the cherubim.

The LORD is near to all who call upon Him,
To all who call upon Him in truth.
- Psalm 145:18

To God be all glory.

Autumn Embers

Outside the clear glass door comprising one wall of our kitchen, a landscape speaking of the fading embers of autumn diffused its horizon against pale strata of clouds. No painting I have ever seen captured the ponderous life of such a morning. Nor would an artist seek to inscribe its beauty, for the attraction is in the air that drifts between undecided worlds of color, texture, light, and rest. As if worn out by the vital radiance of her early days, the autumn sways along in a stupor, ready for the peaceful hibernation of winter.

Trees mostly bereft of leaves presided over their slain children, today still without a waft of chilling air to stir their brittle stems. Dun grass furled its verdant banners, blades shriveled to hide in the dust until the birth of spring. A front might have been gusting through the reaches of heaven, but stalled in its mission, the blown dunes of cloud hung where its power left them, each its own statement on the threadbare blue sky. Light captured from tangent rays was diverted between the layers, promising the pink of dawn then the subtle gold of dusk, finally covering the whole scene in a vague grey shadow.

Not cheerful or motivating; as George MacDonald would say, not pretty, but beautiful. Afraid to release the grandeur of its parent mountains, the dwindling hills on which my house is set would rather be slowly consumed by the tedium of the plains, creeping like the slow tide towards our door. I would sit in the yard, sit and pray, undistracted by irrepressible beauty, for the day is not for walking or doing. Its lure would capture me.

What cloaks itself in a nature like this? Quest-calling by its disguise, perhaps the founded waiting is the source of its captivation: in-between-ness, as though retreating to no reality at all in complacent anticipation of crisis and glory. Perception demands I see that the courage and triumph is born of the staid prudence of these hours. Seas do not withstand tempests without concealing beneath, their unheeded depths.

JRR Tolkien penned two verses suited by this day, this mood, this verity: “All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost. The old that is strong does not wither; deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken; a light from the shadows shall spring. Renewed shall be blade that was broken; the crownless again shall be king.” Perhaps a day like this speaks of an exiled king. Tolkien asked of his poem, what king? George MacDonald took a twin scene from the northwest coast of Scotland and asked, “What chief?” What epic story do the silent rocks evoke?

If I had joined the tale of the day, would I have glimpsed as the sun rose, the carven head of the fallen king coroneted by prophetic gold-flowered vines, the piercing promise of hope before a bleak pilgrimage?

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

Trick or Treat: Tricks Reformed by Luther and Tricks Exchanged Today for the Treat of the Gospel

The evangelical community is not split fifty-fifty whether to celebrate Reformation Day or some form of Halloween or substitute still involving candy and costumes. But there are a lot of Christians who spend October 31 celebrating Luther’s 95 Theses being nailed to the door of his church – and the reformation it helped to establish. My family has traditionally pretended this day does not exist. Like fourth of July in India, it meant nothing. This is because my principled parents were raised to celebrate Halloween but didn’t want to teach their kids to do the same. They were never exposed to reformation celebration.

In fact, my life has been rather lacking in following the history of my faith. Personally, my faith history is being raised in church and at home taught about how Jesus died for my sins. I was saved at age 6 by my personal, private choice, not by “walking an aisle” or making a profession. I wasn’t baptized until fifth grade, and even then didn’t completely understand. Then again, I didn’t completely understand all the theological positions to choose from when I was saved, but from my present theological perspective, God called me, by His grace I responded, and His Spirit has been indwelling me since, revealing more and more of the truth of what He did for me. This might be called sanctification, which has to start somewhere, and just like salvation, is a grace-governed process.

Sorry for the sidetrack; my testimony is important to me. Sharing it is important, too. I’m practicing.

Today is my first excursion into celebrating Reformation Day. I have been reading about the Reformation all morning, and wish to draw a comparison between the two historical interpretations of October 31.

Are Indulgences Tricks or Treats?
You may have heard on TV like I have that when a Catholic goes to confession for their sins, sometimes the priest gives them an assignment, like praying the rosary three times, or five “hail Mary’s”. This concept is apparently very old, based on the belief that to be made right with God and the congregation you have to show some proof of repentance beyond confession. Over the centuries this developed into a formal practice. A person who sinned could sometimes obtain an indulgence, which relieved him from earthly punishment (the need to perform “satisfactions” like those described above). They were usually purchased.

Johann Tetzel (1465-1519)
At the time of Martin Luther, the Pope wanted to hire Michelangelo and others to renovate St. Peter’s Church. To pay for this artistic upgrade, he decided to make a push for selling indulgences (like promoting war bonds). He chose a man, Johann Tetzel, who was a gifted and persuasive speaker, to go city to city selling indulgences. The claims Tetzel made about indulgences began to get extreme. Buy one for yourself. It will get you out of punishment for all sins past, present, and future. Buy one as a get out of purgatory free card. Or buy one for a relative to get them out of purgatory.

The indulgences were tricks played on superstitious, papacy-worshiping people. Tetzel went city to city much like children tonight will go door to door. He offered a trick and called it a merciful treat. The children will ask for a gift, be it a trick or treat.

Attractions: Tricks or Treats?
Evangelical churches across the country will provide a Halloween alternative tonight, calling it a Fall Fair, a Harvest Festival, or a safe place to trick or treat. Some will take the opportunity to share the gospel. In this way they are attracting the community to their churches. Pope Leo’s focus was similar (even if his motives were different): he wanted to make St. Peter’s beautiful so it would attract the world.

History: Trick or Treat?
When I went to look up books about the Protestant Reformation at my library, I could choose from two options: biographies of Martin Luther or a few books in the religious section of the Dewey Decimal System (anyone know who invented that and what he believed?). I would have put them in the history section, since the hundred years of heavy reformation in the Western world was a huge historical event, driving the rise and fall of kingdoms and the colonizing of America. You do not understand the history of European politics or the history of the United States, let alone our laws and culture, without understanding the Reformation.

Likewise Halloween is a little-understood historical day. Its origins are Celtic Paganism. See the Wikipedia article. This is not a cute time for children to have fun. All of it is about paganism, whether Catholic-tainted “All Souls’” or “All Saints Day” or purely pagan. The history of both of these topics is being suppressed.

The Gospel: Trick or Treat?
Finally, the Church should not have to Trick people before Treating them to the gospel. You do not need to bribe them with freedom from community-enforced punishment for their sins, or with beautiful buildings, candy and safe alternatives to Halloween. We need to be compassionately caring for the poor, loving our neighbors, etc. - but to do that as the door to share the gospel has two problems.

1. It is a bait and switch. We tell the poor we want to take care of them, and then when they are captive audiences or grateful enough to politely listen, we share some version of “good news” about how Jesus loves them.
2. We give the impression that the only reason we did the good deeds was to get people to listen to us, like the marketers who will give you a free trip to the mountains or a free knife if you just listen to their sales’ presentation.

Ephesians 1:3-7, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

The gospel is the grace of God. It is the most needed and priceless gift available. If we really believed that salvation is what Ephesians calls it, we would determine with Paul to know only “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2)

To God be all glory.

Learning about the Reformation: Are Emergents Modern Quakers?

I am reading (parts of) an awesome book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Reformation & Protestantism. This is not a confession of idiocy. As a homeschooler we pride ourselves on knowing history, especially that pertaining to the Church. I heard of most of these people and events as a student in world history class, but this book is a much fuller treatment. I think the intervening studies of ecclesiology (you know, that prompting Changing Church) between high school and now has enabled me to grasp where the reformers stood, and what denominational traditions descended from whom.

Here is what I learned this morning:

• Martin Luther fired up the reformation. He was mainly mad about abuses in the Catholic church, especially concerning indulgences. He affirmed salvation by faith alone, and sola Scriptura. However, Luther was not anti-Catholic, and retained many of the worship forms rejected by mainstream protestantism today.
• John Calvin is remarkably human. Some present day denominations might consider this heresy, but I think I can see where he was coming from. Though I thought presbyterians were very Calvinist, the presbyterian style of church was actually begun by someone else:
• John Knox, who established the Auld Kirk, Church of Scotland. I have been in a church run essentially on his model. The impact he had on Scotland, which I have always admired for their theology and conservatism, is huge.
• Anabaptists were the 2-time baptizers not because they thought you had to be baptized twice, but because they didn't count the infant baptism almost everyone had experienced. They varied on other beliefs, but were traditionally more withdrawn from "outsiders", politics, and wars.

This last thing I learned so far is big. Quakers are strikingly reminiscent of the Emergent church movement today. From Idiot's Guide to the Reformation & Protestantism: "The foundational belief of the Quakers is that God gives the individual divine revelation. Each and every person may receive the word of God internally, and each should endeavor to receive that word and heed it... The Quakers rejected the formal creeds and regarded each worshiper of God as a vessel of divine revelation." Listen to a debate between, we'll say he's probably closest to a Calvinist, and an Emergent leader done by Way of the Master Radio.

I checked this book out from the library to reference for another post I will hopefully publish today. Stay tuned.

To God be all glory.

The Shaping of Things to Come Part 9

From Shaping of Things to Come page 73: “These partnerships would demonstrate that Jesus is pleased with the good works of not-yet-Christians…”

Here is where I the discernment alarms began flashing. The next several looks at this book will deal with subjects in which I was in clear opposition to the authors.

What happened to works being like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6)? What about abiding in the vine? No! Good works don’t please Jesus when they’re not for Him. Motives matter. How did He reward the Pharisees, experts at good works who rejected his salvation? He rebuked them, strongly and loudly. He didn’t stand at their side and tell His disciples “These men are doing good work here; help them out.”

Matthew 3:7-8, "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:"

Romans 4:4, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."

Galatians 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Ephesians 2:3, "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

To God be all glory.

Ideal Praise Music

Friday night I wrote a post titled Doxology. It is filled with verses about the greatness and glory and grace of God. “How great is our God” is the theme of my life right now. Almost all of my favorite praise songs and hymns have to do with this topic:

How Great is Our God
Great Is the Lord
Lord We Want to Lift Your Name on High

are only the few that have been running through my head the past couple hours.

I had an opportunity to earn $50 for taking a survey about Christian radio. My conscience wouldn’t let me return the call because I hardly ever listen to Christian radio anymore. Ravi Zacharias is good. Occasionally I’ll hit a song with good lyrics, or that is old enough that I remember it from the 90’s when contemporary Christian music was bearable. Mostly the music is noise, screams, violence-inspiring beats, or bad theology. Then we adopt them into our churches for worship songs, but that’s another post.

A dream radio station would play thoughtful, accurately biblical songs whose lyrics I can hear, and with which after a few hearings I can sing along. There would be a focus on worship songs: not “I love you, Jesus,” but “He was wounded for our transgressions.”

1. This category praises the character of God,
2. Praises His intervention in the world, and
3. Thanks Him for His personal provision for me.
   

The other types of songs I would allow is the testimony kind (just like #3 above, but addressed to people, not to God) and prayer-songs (of confession, need, desires, excitement - like the Psalms). All should be in accordance with sound doctrine.

To tell the truth I can hardly find albums like this to buy. Even the collections of hymns by today’s artists tend to be impossible to join. The artists want to present their version on the hymn, making it special. But I do own a series of CD’s that have choirs or artists just singing the hymns. My favorite is What Wondrous Love is This, featuring Joni Eareckson Tada (she’s the singer I recognize).

If you, like me, are looking for simple hymns to remind you through your day of the greatness of the God we serve, get this collection.

To God be all glory.

Responsible

I do try to be consistent. The pro-life article I linked earlier, and especially the comments afterward, assumed that responsible people would have used birth control. In case you’re wondering, the birth control I believe in is abstinence outside of marriage, and trusting God inside of marriage.

Responsibility is not some objective standard. I think we should view responsibility as to something or someone. In the instance of abstinence, we are responsible to God to abide by His instructions, trust His providence, embrace His gifts, and thus receive His blessings.

What makes me more angry than the confused, hormonal, and lied-to women who receive abortions are the complacent, indifferent Christians who equally devalue new life by so-called prevention. A good friend did a research paper in college on “the pill,” and was horrified to learn that the medication embraced by self-proclaimed responsible Christian wives is an abortificient. Translation: even in the birth control doses, the pill can cause abortions of not-yet implanted embryos. The should-be parents never know unless they’re under invasive medical screening. All they know is that - “what a relief” - they aren’t pregnant. What shocked my friend even more is that when she informed the Christian population, who had to be ignorant to keep using the pill, surely; she found that the friends had heard of the claim that the pill is an abortificient. To so many Christians who would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the facts about their chemical birth control were irrelevant.

I’m a sheltered homeschool Christian girl who doesn’t really need to decide for herself on these issues yet. First I was pro-life. Then I was anti-abortion. Then I was anti-”the pill.” Now I’m anti-birth control. I’m pro-children, would love to have lots of children, and will be serving in the church nursery tomorrow (despite the fact that I don’t believe in Church nurseries).

Be responsible…

to God.

To God be all glory.

Planned Parenthood Denver this Morning

This morning I was back outside Planned Parenthood, praying for the babies, the mothers, the fathers, the grandmothers, the friends, the staff and volunteers of the clinic, and some of the protesters with me that they would know Jesus’ grace. His grace has meant so much to me. We’re all just sinners; only accepting God’s grace makes a difference. That is humbling and unifying.

I was looking at the signs the pro-lifers had up. Some make no sense, strange verses that don’t have much to do with babies or life or salvation. Others are simple and obvious, like “Abortion kills.” Popular are bloody photographs of what an aborted baby looks like, how old it was, how big, etc. When the scared, confused, selfish, or arrogant girls drive in, I can’t imagine how they go through with their abortion facing the evidence in front of them. My bet is that while doctors tend to have posters and pamphlets and full-disclosure of the procedures in other fields, the Planned Parenthood walls were not postered with happy photographs of beheaded infants, though the volunteers who escort women inside cheerfully pretend there is a party inside.

Even though I see the potential impact of these signs and accompanying rhetoric, I much prefer the other signs. These are photos of live babies, in the womb or already birthed. If I had a baby, I’d bring it to the clinic to protest. The pleas accompanying these signs are, “Please, mom, don’t kill your baby! Come talk to us. Any help you need, we’ll get it for you for free. Is it a boy or a girl they’re going to kill today?”

I don’t know where the propaganda comes from, but somehow the mothers and abortionists think that we stand shivering in the cold, early Saturday mornings for greedy reasons of our own. The staff yell back at the protesters trying to intercede for helpless, innocent infants, “You hypocrites! Judge not.” We’re called idiots, stupid, and unfeeling.

But the people out there care. Almost every family I know that protests also supports crisis pregnancy centers and adoption. Most have adopted. If a baby is saved, the mother is not abandoned. She is mentored, and cared for, and given options. Some of the women protesting have experienced the life-altering impact of abortions by having one themselves. Now they know. They’ve repented. Many have experienced Jesus’ forgiveness and peace. And they want to help the girls today to find that peace, as well.

Today was the first day I went without close friends or family. When I sit there I don’t know what’s wrong, but I’m emotionless. I know the facts, and they don’t add up to what I see before me, and maybe the lack of comprehension in my soul overwhelms me and shuts down my feelings. The first time I went, I was worried that I would do something rash, impulsive, drastic, physical, and illegal. But I didn’t, and still don’t have very strong urges to do so. I’m safe, then, going to meet strangers. Being there on my own moved several of the grandmotherly women to compassion for me, I guess. They gave me hugs. I don’t usually hug strangers, but I felt their love, their comaraderie.

Look. I’m rambling about my experience, and rarely conclude well. A blog is one endless conversation; shouldn’t it just transition into the next post? But I do want to say: do something. Support a crisis pregnancy center. Consider adoption. Protest. Fund protests. Write your state and federal congressmen. Get your church involved. Give a baby a hug.

To God be all glory.

Federal Facts about Planned Parenthood

First go to the Townhall article “Abortion Wars” by Robert Novak. I wrote the following in response to his article and the comments made on his report.

1. Planned Parenthood was founded to deliver abortions to the poor and irresponsible in order to annihilate them in a few generations. Instead the availability of abortions at low cost subsidized the people groups (poor and irresponsible), increasing their numbers as all subsidies do.

2. Since Planned Parenthood sells abortions for such low costs, and is losing money on them, without making money in other areas or from donations (including government ones), they would not be able to provide abortions at those costs.

3. Kansas has reason to believe Planned Parenthood often and variously breaks the law. Other states and investigative agencies have evidence of illegal activity by Planned Parenthood across the country.

4. The Constitution does not permit federal tax or tariff $ to go to any kind of health care/research/prevention. It is supposed to support the government.

5. Regardless, the US congress annually criminally allots millions of dollars to the support of this allegedly criminal institution.

6. Then the US government, which has subsidized irresponsibility and devaluation of human life and reproduction and sex, allots more money to supposedly rehabilitate the victims of their subsidies: poor, emotionally traumatized, physically traumatized, sexually abused, financially irresponsible, sexually irresponsible, STD-infected, and murderers (taught to devalue human life by the federal example).

Even without going into the moral argument, which I fully support, there is no pragmatic or legal excuse for our tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood.

To God be all glory.