The Futile, Powerless God of Henri Nouwen

"Today I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God's house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her own way to God." – Henri Nouwen 

The parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 used to be my favorite Bible passage. Until a contemplative mystic priest named Henri Nouwen ruined it for me.

Several years ago, I wrote about my brief encounter with "contemplative Christianity", which I was introduced to through the works of Brennan Manning, Richard Foster, and Basil Pennington. Although I was a much younger Christian and could not discern that their practices of "inner seeing" and "hearing" God were not biblical (through trance-like meditation, extreme fasting, repetition of mantras, "breath prayers" and other mystical practices), I started to get the sense that something was just "off" about it all. Naturally, unbiblical practice and adding "spiritual disciplines" (that have more in common with paganism than Scripture) will shape one's theology.

These men, and many more like them - Thomas Merton; Henri Nouwen; David G. Benner - claimed to be Christians at one time, (gradually transitioning to a theistic Buddhism - Merton converted entirely to Buddhism while still a Catholic monk) but in fact their theology has more in common with Eastern religions than Christianity. Christian mysticism is itself an oxymoron - see here for more info about contemplative spirituality, and it's connection with the New Age.

Contemplative prayer, by design, focuses on having a mystical experience with God. It was while reading one of Benner's books, "The Gift of Being Yourself: The Sacred Call of Self-Discovery" that God gave me a wake-up call. I began what would become a 10-year journey, researching theistic philosophies such as pantheism, panentheism, universal salvation, trancendental meditation (which contemplatives call "the silence"), etc. Another four years of theological training to become a biblical counselor helped solidify my ability to "test all things", and compare teachings to the Bible's clear teaching.

Nevertheless, it was with some anticipation that I picked up Henri Nouwen's "The Return of the Prodigal Son" recently, as a Christian friend recommended it. A meditation (in the Christian sense of the word!) on Rembrandt's famous painting, I settled in to enjoy the sensitive priest's insights into this beautiful picture of God's love.

As I began reading, two things emerged by the end of the Introduction: Nouwen was a man who sincerely loved the Lord and His people. And, he was firmly in the contemplative/mystical camp (a fact I already knew), but the casual reader, unfamiliar with the New Age terminology used by contemplatives, might not pick that up. Words may be ascribed different meanings by different people, which makes doctrinal error so slippery. I began to take notes.

The Good, the Bad, and the Blasphemous

There was much that was very, very good in "Prodigal Son". There was nothing mystical in his analysis and personal reflection on the painting per se, or in how he inserted himself into the parable - to identify with each of the three main characters. Many of his points about grace, accepting forgiveness, and the unconditional love of the Father were excellent, especially coming from a Catholic writer. “More than any other story in the Gospel, the parable of the Prodigal Son expresses the boundlessness of God’s compassionate love. And when I place myself in that story under the light of that divine love, it becomes painfully clear that leaving home is much closer to my spiritual experience than I might have thought.” Nouwen deeply sought fellowship with Christ. The problem, as evidenced by his faulty theology, is that he was seeking it in broken cisterns - not in the Word of God.

Before the end of the first section, a study on the younger son himself, Nouwen referred to "inner light", "inner seeing", and "inner healing". All of these may sound like fairly benign terms to one unfamiliar with mysticism, but they all point towards the "going within to find enlightenment" theophostic philosophy taken from Eastern religions. (Christianity, by contrast, teaches us that we need a new spirit and a new heart - and to look to Jesus). In all of the ways Nouwen mentioned how he "heard from God" - most notably, "in the center of [his] being", he never once mentioned the Bible. For even an immature believer, this should be a major red flag - the way God specifically reveals Himself to us is through His Word. Not through mystical means, which are condemned in Scripture (Deut. 18:9-12a).

The vast majority of what Nouwen wrote about our propensity to "flee to the wilderness", away from God's love, and the thought-patterns (insecurity; pride; comparison and jealousy) that harden our hearts was excellent. His insights into the human condition and how we relate to God rivaled those of any Reformed biblical counselor. I would just start to relax and enjoy the book when I would be blind-sided by a heretical statement such as "Judas sold the sword of his sonship" (and thus lost his salvation), or "I am touching here the mystery that Jesus himself became the prodigal son for our sake.”

A Powerless God?

According to Nouwen, God is "powerless" to prevent His children's rebellion (p. 90); "naive" (p. 99); "both Father and Mother" (p. 94); "she" and "her" (p. 96); "needs me as much as I need Him" (p.99) and the real sin is "ignoring [our] 'original goodness' (p. 101). The final section of the book, on the Father, is where Nouwen's faulty view of God became most apparent and the entire analysis fell apart.

Let's compare Henri Nouwen's god with the God of Scripture. Sovereignty means that God, as the ruler of the Universe, has the right to do whatever he wants. He is in complete control over everything that happens. (Psalm 115:3; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:20.) He has no need of anything outside of Himself; and He is not standing like a beggar, hat in hand, needful of our love (as is the case with Nouwen's god.)

Further, Nouwen's idealistic view that ALL are children of God and have "original goodness" completely contradicts what Scripture states about unregenerate man: Abominable – Rev. 21:8 Sinners – Rev. 22:15 Fault finders – Job 41 Corrupt – Psalm 14:1,3; Rom. 3:10 Evil – 2 Tim 3:13 (just to name a few unsavory characteristics).

Perhaps most bizarre was Nouwen's dogged insistence - straight out of Wiccan and New Age belief systems - that God is feminine as well as masculine; both Mother and Father. The Bible clearly teaches that God is Father; it's not really open to debate or interpretation.

The Price of Error

False teaching is often hard to spot, precisely because it sounds so good. It's usually mixed in with just enough Truth to be palatable. But to anyone with a strong grasp of Scripture, the problem with Nouwen's doctrine - especially his view of salvation and the nature of God - should have been obvious. (I had deliberately NOT shared my personal opinion while pointing out the book's shortcomings, but followed a clear-cut format: "Nouwen says: X. The Bible says:Y.") Scripture speaks for itself.

How can Bible-believing Christians, when faced with such clear-cut instances of deviant theology, not spot the error? How is a blood-bought child of God not horrified by Nouwen's powerless God; rejection of original sin and depravity of man; universal salvation (many paths lead to God), and blasphemous statements that God is "Mother" and Christ "became the Prodigal Son"? I have only one answer to this: deception by emotional investment. It is willful deception that, when shown the clear words of Scripture, rejects them for the sake of defending the heretic. I will never be able to read Luke 15 again without the bitter taste of false teaching in my mouth.

Was Peter the First Pope?

Great apologetics essay by The Aristophrenium...and excellent example of why the synthetic principle (of hermeneutics) disallows us from building an entire doctrine upon ONE VERSE:

Was Peter the First Pope?

“Why Study Church History?”: the Myopia of the Modern

I just stumbled across an excellent article by Josh Congrove of Clearnote Fellowship on the importance of knowing Church history. It's a long read, but he makes many valuable points which should be self-evident. Be sure and check out the original article here:

http://www.clearnotefellowship.org/Resources/Blog/2010/01/01/Why-Study-Church-History-Myopia-Modern

"Those of us who are Protestants are tempted to regard the study of Church history as unessential, an extra, perhaps even at odds with our belief in the sufficiency of Scripture. So why pursue it?

The principal reason is because God intends us to learn from the mistakes made and lessons learned by others in the past (Jer. 6:16). It's often been said that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, and we might be tempted to seize upon this as reason enough for learning about Church history. But there is a more important reason to study Church history: namely, that we’re not cosmic believers in karma but mortal believers in Jesus Christ. We’re responsible not to history but to the Judge of all history. And God has designed His world in such a way that we don't proceed through life simply in a cycle, but rather with the realization that history moves according to His plan, and He intends us to benefit from what Christians in previous eras have done, either rightly or wrongly.

And studying Church history shows us that the Church we see in Scripture didn’t stop there. It didn't exist independently from, or outside of, history, nor did the closing of Scripture's canon mean that the teaching of the apostles stopped with it.

At this point, it is possible for us to fall victim to one of two opposite errors. We might regard the early Church's practice as a) either an unimportant example that can be disregarded, or b) a relic to be slavishly copied. We can see both errors at work in the Church today, sometimes in the same groups.

We see the first error all over the contemporary evangelical world, most notably in the tendency of hip evangelicals to reject practices seen as outmoded, dated, and out of sync with the prevailing postmodern ethos. Fence the Lord's Table from nonbelievers? Disallow women from exercising authority in the Church? Neither of these sits well with evolved progressives who can't allow themselves to be seen in the same light as those primitive leaders of the Early Church.

The second error is one we might be tempted to see only in the Roman Catholic Church. After all, they're the ones concerned about tradition and relics, right? Don't be so sure. Think about it: the same hip emergents who disregard the example of the Early Church's doctrine and practice are often also those most concerned to claim its symbolism and ethos. How often do you hear of churches professing to recover the original essence of Christianity? Of finding again the "real" Jesus? Of creating an authentic "faith community" that fulfills a man's need to be both evolved and moored?

But this tendency isn't limited to emergent churches. Consider any number of "evangelical" churches that desire to tie themselves directly to the Early Church, skipping over 2,000 years of Church history in the process. How about the Campbellites or Restorationists of the Disciples of Christ or other "Christian Church" denominations, who hold the Lord's Supper every week in a haphazard miss-it-and-it's-gone fashion, claiming this to be a restoration of the practice of the Early Church? How about the adherents of Oneness Pentecostalism who excuse their rejection of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine by feigning an adherence to the pure simplicity of the doctrine of the Early Church?

Yet understanding Church history properly shows us that the truth handed down by the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) continued to guide the church in its first centuries. Errant doctrine crept in, to be sure, but much was preserved by men of God striving to safeguard the good deposit they'd been given. And so, yes, on the one hand we see the error of baptismal regeneration creeping into the Church, but on the other hand we also see the faithful, careful exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, embryonic in the Early Church, but carefully explained by later generations of faithful pastors. We see that the Christian faith spread worldwide, not simply because of its attractiveness to the poor, as secular scholars opine, but also because of the wise, bold apostolic mission of the Church in the centuries following the apostolic age. Any attempt to be "missional" today without understanding the missionary activity of the historic church is foolhardy and short-sighted.

Much of this myopia in the contemporary church also stems from another trait in our culture: narcissism. Our generation is arguably one of the most self-focused in history, and so it's no surprise that our churches are ever deluded by the mirage of rediscovery, and the allure of self-discovery. When we focus constantly on ourselves, our time, our modern sophistication, our evolved state, it's not long until we become guilty of the arrogance that assumes we can rediscover Jesus, recover original Christianity, or restore the true essence of faith—with no concern for the lessons and discoveries of the past 1,800 years.

It’s here that Church history becomes a great help to us. Understanding Church history shows us that the most incredible, most sophisticated discoveries in the Christian faith were made long ago. It shows us that our great need today is not to let postmodernism inform the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather to proclaim its doctrine, already discovered, to a world that needs old truth explained, not new truth uncovered. Church history shows us that most of the new perspectives we think we've opened today are really little more than rehashing of old heresy. Open theism is nothing more than the posterity of Pelagianism, and its adherents, if more sophisticated, are only the degraded descendents of a man whom St. Augustine defeated 1,600 years ago. Feminism is nothing but ancient goddess worship revived, and abortion nothing but ancient child-slaughter dressed up in American language. And so Church history shows us in detail what we already should have known from Scripture, that there is "nothing new under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9), no temptation but such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13), and that those who ignore the lessons of God’s Church reveal a desire for self-imposed darkness.

But lest I end this brief defense on a negative note, consider also how Church history is a constant testimony to the faithfulness of God among His people. For 1,900 years after the apostles' passing, the Chief Shepherd has safeguarded His sheep, allowing sinful men still to serve as defenders of the truth, and His Church still to show itself as the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). And so those who ignore this history deprive themselves of the blessings of 2,000 years of God's working in ways that even the Apostles likely never imagined. Upon closing the last book of Scripture, did the Apostle John see how wondrously God would provide for the Church he had served so faithfully? Could he see how it would endure, protected from Arianism, from Pelagianism, from Islam? Could he also see how God would protect it from itself, even? How the innocent purity of the Apostolic message would be corrupted in the coming centuries by sacramentalism, indulgences, and Mariolatry? And how God would use His servants in recovering the truth of the Gospel but without disregarding the truth that had endured?

It's likely John saw none of these things in detail, but it's certain that in our day we can. God has provided us a record of His people's experiences, from Adam to Christ, from Christ to John, and now from John to us today. These things are not just pieces of arcane knowledge; they are records of mistakes made and lessons learned. They are "written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Corinthians 10:11). God has given them to us as aids to our faith and antidotes to our narcissism, and we disregard them to our own peril and impoverishment. They are not Scripture, but they do show Scripture’s power, and the faithfulness of a God who throughout all time is establishing a Church that the gates of hell will never withstand (Matt. 16:18)."

Well, Burst My Bubble: the Molokans Were Heretics!

Bummer for them.

I have always been fascinated by the obscure Eastern European sects of antiquity that broke off from the mainstream Orthodox Church in days gone by, if only for learning where they were correct in confronting the unbiblical practices of the dominant Church (such as the use of icons; the priesthood). Similarly, it's a lesson in the importance of orthodoxy (small "o") when examining where these groups went off the rails theologically. (The First Council of Nicea was kinda important, but might not have ever happened if Constantine had towed the line!)

Some years ago, I was reading an historical Christian fiction series set in 19th century Georgia and Armenia. The series cast the breakaway sect of the Molokans (in Russian, "молокане") as the spiritual protagonists, against the backdrop of the Big Bad Orthodox Cossack soldiers. I was intrigued by the group, who appeared to be a Slavic version of the Amish. The book claimed they were called "Milk Drinkers" because they drank no alcohol (I recently learned it was because they deliberately drank milk on the Orthodox fasting days, just to rile the clergy up).

Whatever the reason, they seemed like upstanding biblical Christian folks (and besides, milk builds strong bones and teeth).

There is not too much information written on the Molokans, although my Bulgarian pastor has an aquaintence in academia who is listed as the formost expert on the Molokans in the world. There are several thousand living in the San Fransisco area, and a few more thousand spread around the West Coast. Recently, I found a tiny group on Facebook (which I joined, just for fun) and found an extremely informative blog written by a former Molokan....who is now a born-again Christian.

Come again??

Turns out, (and there is some debate about this), this group of in-your-face Bible thumpers rejects the Trinity. Oops. That's a big one right there. Old Testament dietary restrictions are in full effect -- as are the "sign gifts" believed to be bestowed in a select few. Those with the "gift" are supposed to jump up and spontaneously prophecy at their meetings. "The Book of Spirit and Life", written by a 19th century Molokan "prophet", is given pre-eminence along with the Bible. Outside Christians are not welcomed as part of the Body, and the Molokans reject both baptism and Communion. While they are pacifists like the Mennonites, their roots are not Anabaptist as I had previously assumed. Evidently, they themselves claim descent from the "Paulician" sect of Armenia.

This is not a spiritual pedigree one would want to flaunt, I'm afraid. The "Paul" was not the Apostle Paul; rather, an Armenian bishop combined dualistic and Christian doctrines and thought he was re-inventing "the doctrines of Paul". According to Gregory Magistos, writing in 1058 AD, the Paulicians did not recognize persons of other communions as belonging to the churches. "We do not belong to these," they said. "They have long ago broken connection with the church and have been excluded." There you have it - a medieval cult. (The history is a long and fascinating one, but the bottom line is that it was a heretical group.)

The Bogomils, the other group which descended from this early sect, is one with which I am much more familiar. They were a formidible cult in Bulgaria between the 10th and 14th century - a neo-gnostic sect which had a dualistic belief in God, also rejected the Trinity, as well as the Creed and a good portion of the Bible. Although they rejected the mandatory Orthodox fasts, they were ascetics and had some other strange stuff going on. Some, tracing the Protestant movement in Bulgaria, have linked John Wycliffe and Jan Hus (early Protestant Reformers) to the movement, although historically and doctrinally there is no connection whatsoever. (When editing Pastor Hristo's book last winter, I added a paragraph explaining the Bogomil belief system and why it was heretical - as I explained to him, the average English speaker has never heard of the Bogomils and might erroneously assume they were proto-protestants). Much like the Cathars of medieval France, these sects grew and splintered - tossed to and fro without the benefit of solid, biblical teaching.

Unfortunately, it turns out the Molokans - for all their noble and godly outward appearances - are essentially in the same category as the Cathars, the Bogomils, and their spiritual ancestors. Satan isn't particularly creative with inventing new heresies - he just keeps repackaging the same old ones in a new form every few centuries.

I'm sure no-one else cares about obscure Russian psuedo-Christian splinter groups, but I'm kind of disappointed. I wonder if Tolstoy was a Molokan....

Avoid Sound Doctrine Ministries Like the Plague!

Beware.

You've been warned.






Before becoming enmeshed last week in a lordship salvation debate with a confused soul who doesn't really understand the premise of regeneration, I had come across a website purporting to be pro-lordship which was offering free books entitled "Even the Demons Believe". Who can argue with a title like that? Said book has been sitting in my basement bookcase for over a month, whilst I resolved to get around to it one day.

This morning I had to get my brake pads changed (ground themselves right into the rotors, the blasted things) so I read it while drinking swanky coffee in the dealership's Customer Appreciation Department. I already understand that true conversion will always result in fruit, but I figured this book would give me a more concise explanation of the lordship of Christ for future discussions. I tend to go off on tangents, in case you haven't noticed, and that's not a virtue when you're explaining doctrine.

So.....even the demons believe. We all agree so far. The introduction sounded like an even-handed reaction on the part of sincere Christians to emotion-based appeals and easy believism. "Sound Doctrine Ministries" evidently was started to combat the "cheap grace" so rampant in post-modern evangelicalism, and the foreword sounded legitimate enough. I was about 7 or 8 pages in before I started to get the willies. The overall tone of the book is severe - completely joyless. No doubt, the first thing that made me raise my eyebrows (although certainly not heresy) was the following sentence: "Jesus hated His life while He walked on this earth." Really, now? No context for that whatsoever. The Gospels several times mention His joy (Luke 10:21; Luke 15:5; John 15:11; John 17:13) and complete submission to the will of the Father -- which was for Him to live as fully man. Nothing in the Gospels indicates Jesus "hated" His life - there was no sin in Him, and He delighted in doing the Father's will.

Moving on...on the next page, I encounter this gem:

"In the first place, Jesus did not come to make Christians, but disciples. This is an important distinction, mainly because when someone refers to themselves as a Christian they consider it a done deal. But Jesus looked at it differently. He sought to make disciples, and a disciple is someone in the act of continually learning from God...becoming a disciple demands a degree of humility and teachability that being a Christian does not require. A Christian sounds like a finished deal.....a disciple is in the process of being saved and waits for God's "coming of salvation," "revealed in the last time."

(emphasis mine).

"Aha!" said I. "They're confusing justification with sanctification. This could get interesting." Reading on, I learn that being born again is a lengthy process, much like becoming a medical doctor, and we will not really be Christians until we "graduate" and see Christ face to face. "Disciples are individuals that were saved, are being saved and will be saved. Salvation, like discipleship, is a process. God has given us free choice and we can stop this process of saving grace and thus fall away."

Haven't heard that line since Catholic school. Raw deal for that guy on the cross who believed Christ was who He said He was in his last moments, huh? To continue, I learn that if a man then hardens his heart, he cuts off the power of grace and will forfeit eternal life - therefore he must "simply say "yes" to the grace of God every day" in order for God to keep him from falling. So then....who is the one controlling our salvation? Certainly not God, if we can gain it on Monday, lose it on Tuesday....gain it back on Wednesday...only to lose it again on Friday.

Guess what? There's not a Christian alive who hasn't "said no" to God's grace at least one day of his life. That's what makes grace "grace" (def.: undeserved gift; unmerited favor). A true child of God will not stay in a hardened or unrepentant state (Luke 15) - God knows His own. After myriad warnings of all the ways I can lose my salvation, I'm told that I must "make every effort to be saved" and pay the price (after an undetermined amount of time contemplating and counting the cost).

What does that cost entail, you ask? Well, Williams has included a 31-point bullet list of "a few things to consider before [I] make [my] decision to follow Jesus. I'm cautioned to "please keep in mind these are only a few things that [I] should consider long before calling [myself] a Christian."

• A despising and hating of money [spoiler alert: turns out this group, which is based in Washington, means by this that I should fork it all over to them].
• A hatred of my time, rest, comfort, fun, and joys [lots of hating going on here already, dontcha think?)
• A realization that God regrets making me [Wowzers! Don't think I've ever seen Genesis 6:6 taken QUITE that far out of context...my Bible also says He takes great delight in me and rejoices over me with singing - Zeph. 3:17]
• To work out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing I could lose it [I swear I am not making this up - do I really need to post all the references that promise the Christian eternal security, assurance of salvation, and perseverance?]
• To pray all of the time [even while I'm asleep, I gather]
• To be prepared to stop associating with anyone who claims to be a Christian but is a hypocrite [So I really don't have to deal with my parents! I'm off da hook! I KNEW there had to be a loophole to that pesky 5th Commandment thingy!]
• Come into the Light where my whole life is open before God and the church [Hmm. Based in what I've read so far, that sounds like a thin veneer for a high control group. Starting to smell like ICOC, me thinks. Spoiler alert: founders were once involved in ICOC. I can smell cults a mile away, I tell you...I'm getting good.]

In conclusion, we learn that "....we cannot hope for a resurrected life without first carrying the cross the Holy Spirit gives us." Shaking head and blinking here. That gives the expression "putting the cart before the horse" new meaning. How can one hope to carry a cross before conversion (becoming a child of God?) Why would the Holy Spirit expect us to "prove" ourselves by cross-bearing prior to being placed in Christ, and where would we get the strength (let alone the desire) apart from a vital union with our Savior?

One thing I learned while writing my own book was that when discussing doctrine and applied theology, your wording must be very, very precise.

The one doctrine of grace that "Even the Demons Believe" handled accurately was Total Depravity. However, even there, Williams says more than the Bible does (in regards to the elect): "God's grace requires full surrender of all pride and self-justification, [true] for God is "grieved" that he (sic) made you. [patently untrue]. As He looks at your life and what you have become "pain" fills His heart." Again, the author is taking Genesis 6:6 out of context and overlooking the fact of God's omniscience - He knows the end from the beginning and rejoices over His elect. He does not wish any to perish, but repeatedly out of love calls men to repentance. This mixing of truth with error is typical throughout the book, and it grieves me that younger Christians might read this and believe it is an accurate representation of lordship (or, worse, an accurate picture of God's view of them).

Williams writes:

"When a man or woman stops carrying the cross, the new life God created starts to die because the old you begins to take over again. If this situation continues long enough, the new life God started totally dies and the person becomes more fit for hell than when God first started. Better that he never even started trying to be a Christian."

#1. 1 Peter 1:23 says "you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." If God creates a new life, it cannot die. (John 11:26; John 3:36) and no one can snatch that life out of God's hand (John 10:28) because that life is now hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). See why it's important to read your Bible, and not let pious-sounding purveyors of man-made doctrine confuse you?

#2. Let's look at Matthew 23:15 in context, shall we? "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." Jesus here was addressing the Pharisees, who were lost and blinded in their own hypocrisy. The warning of being "twice as fit for hell" was not addressed to Christians who had momentarily dropped their "cross"; it was addressed to apostate Judaic teachers who refused to bend the knee to Him as the Messiah. (Ever notice Jesus never threatened Peter with hell, even after his denial?)

#3. Salvation is a work of God. No one "tries" to be a Christian; God draws him (John 6:44). In fact, the Bible repeatedly affirms that man does not seek God on his own initiative (Romans 3:11) because the heart is inherently deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9).

Next, an entire chapter is devoted to "proving" baptism is the "next step" in the process of salvation. Acts 2:36-40 is used as a proof text, and the actual water is declared to be salvific.

(Whew...this is getting complicated! I wonder if that Samaritan woman or the adulteress Jesus forgave...or Zacheus the wee little man or the Extraordinarily Sinful Woman of Luke 7 knew any of this, or that repentance is a threefold process. I think they just came to Christ, broken but in faith.)

On it continues in this vein. If I may state the obvious: This is NOT Lordship. Trust me. I love John Macarthur. I like Paul Washer. Sometimes, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I can even tolerate Tim Conway (wonderfully balanced message on God's love and holiness can be seen here). All "Lordship Salvation" is, is a recognition that if Christ is our Savior, He is fully our Lord and if we call ourselves disciples, we'll walk in obedience. There will always be some evidence of a changed life in one who has been reborn - sometimes sooner; sometimes later. As I wrote in my own book recently, once you know that love and that unfathomable mercy, you can't help but be changed by it. Obedience is birthed out of gratitude - there's a desire to die to self and to live for Christ. (If living for self were working for us, why would we have become Christians in the first place?) Lordship does not mean you will never struggle with sin, nor is it works-based salvation (the epitome of pride).

Usually, but not always, when a ministry labeling itself Christian gives away books free on the internet, it's a safe bet they're a cult. (Gospel for Asia is one notable exception). A few years ago, an "evangelical" group e-mailed me asking me to translate one of their books into Bulgarian. They turned out to be an esoteric cult based in Korea. (For the price they were offering, I wouldn't have done it even if it had been for Billy Graham!) About 10 minutes of research turned up that these purveyors of the "true gospel", Sound Doctrine Ministries, is a pseudo--Christian cult (their publisher is Carried Cross Books). Many people have shared their testimonies of deceit, manipulation and destroyed lives in online forums; Moriel Ministries discussed the group's red flags as well.

You've been warned. Beware of them. Be Bereans.

Conversing with Satan

I didn't want to even give the enemy the dignity of using his image, even in clip-art. So here's a nice one of a woman conversing with Christ instead.
<==





Here is a great quote from John Macarthur, who is in turn quoting a Puritan writer on how Christians will often fall into the trap of questioning their salvation and even God's love for them. Taken from a phenomenal sermon on the doctrine of assurance, which you can read here. It is from a three-part series in which Macarthur examines reasons people lack assurance, reasons for false assurance, and why a biblical assurance of being eternally in Christ is not "the sin of presumption".

Here is the excerpt:

"The heart of a person with a strong compelling conscience, the heart of a person with a strong understanding of holiness, righteousness and the law of God, the heart of a person who understands justice may find it difficult to accept forgiveness. By the way, may I suggest to you as a footnote that people who feel that way have willingly crowned the devil king. That's right. You have crowned the devil king because the devil is the accuser of whom? The brethren. The devil speaks of guilt. He speaks of violation of a holy standard. He speaks of violation of the law of God. He speaks of justice and he will tell you you're too bad to be forgiven, you belong to me. And if you buy it you crown him king and you say guilt rules, condemnation rules, sin rules. Christ is not king. Grace does not rule. Mercy does not rule. Forgiveness does not rule.

Believe me, Satan wants to do this. Satan wants you to doubt your salvation, that is why you have to put on the helmet of salvation...to protect your head from the smashing crushing blows of Satan who wants you to doubt. One Puritan writer wrote this,

"Yea further, he that lacks assurance of God's love converses too much with Satan. As he that has the assurance of God's love converses with Christ, the Spirit bearing witness to him that he's a child of God, so he that lacks assurance converses with Satan and Satan, though falsely, bears witness to his spirit that he is not a child of God. And is it not a misery to be in these conversations with Satan, to be under his hellish droppings? O what a pain it is then to lie bedridden of an unbelieving heart. The devil is always following and tempting me to suspect the love of Christ and he does it that he may attain his mind upon me. For the devil knows well enough that the more I suspect Christ's love, the more I shall embrace Satan's love. The truth is, beloved, this lack of assurance of God's love or interest in Christ is an inlet to many sins and miseries, for first a man doubts of his own salvation, afterwards he has continued doubting, then he rises up until a full conclusion saying, `Now know I that Christ does not love me. I did but doubt before, but now I know He does not love me.' And after he has risen to this conclusion, then shortly he rises higher and he goes further thus, `If Christ does not love me now, He will never love me. And if I have not an interest in Christ now, after all the preaching I have heard, and ordinances I have enjoyed, I shall never have it. And so the longer I live the more I shall aggravate my condemnation,'" end quote.

If you crown Satan king and let him crush your head with the law and your guilt and justice, you will doubt...you will doubt. Both strong preaching of a high and holy standard and a refusal to accept forgiveness cause people to doubt."

In my own observation as a Bible study teacher and discipler, I have noticed that doubts about assurance seem to plague us ex-catholics more often than those who were raised with a biblical understanding of grace. Because of the Jesus + works soteriology in which we were raised, our "default mode" tends towards synergism. Understanding that good works and holiness are the result of a regenerate, born-again spirit and not the catalyst of salvation goes a long way towards transforming one's walk. Ironically, it is most-often the struggling Romans 7 Christian - a true child of God tormented by one's own sense of missing the mark - rather than the adherents of "cheap grace" that most often doubt and question their own assurance.

This is a great series that deals with both the reasons Christians doubt their election and the biblical tests and basis for assurance.

The Initiating, Pursuing, Seeking, Divine Friend We Have in Jesus

I just spent some time reflecting on an insight the Gospels give me into the character of Christ. I am smiling, and want to try and get this down in hopes it will encourage the rest of you foot-draggers. Whenever I draft in Word and upload, the blog is plagued by funky html codes, so forgive the rambling, stream-of-conscious flow of this entry.

What We Know

We all know from Jesus Himself that He came to "seek and save' the lost. We also know from John 15:16, Romans and elsewhere that we did not choose God, but rather he took the initiative in seeking us out - the strongest argument for monergism there is. There isn't a Christian alive who isn't touched by the scene of the Father rushing out to meet the Prodigal Son, and when Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd, He is alluding to His tendency to go after that one lost sheep He mentioned in Luke 15.

What We're Supposed to Know

But here is something so reassuring and simple that I often doubt, dismiss or forget: He initiates reconciliation (restoration of fellowship) with the sinning Christian. Even when we go through dry, 'desert' periods of prayerlessness, spiritual famine, and shying away from approaching Him in prayer, He pursues us. We don't have to slide into a season of overt sin and rebellion to shy away from coming to Him in prayer: I do it all the time. I get so self-focused and intent on being "productive" that I blow off devotional time. Then I fall prey to what Jerry Bridges calls "Quiet Time Guilt", and figure I'm such a carnal, uncommitted Christian that Jesus wouldn't really want me around anyway. My energies turn to "doing (spiritual) stuff", to make up for the fact that I don't have the emotional energy or courage to really face Him and repent.

The longer one stays in this dry valley, the easier it is to stay there (remember the law of inertia?) and the less "worthy" it is to come back and repent. But what's so amazing about the restoration process is that Jesus pursues us even while we're in the valley. So why do we let shame and self-consciousness keep us there? He doesn't need us (God doesn't "need" anything), but for some inexplicable reason He wants us.

Here's what got me thinking on this amazing attribute of God this morning. I was thinking about Christ's restoration of your homeboy and mine, the Apostle Peter. I have seen many devotions and other writings waxing nostalgic about the beach-side encounter of John 21, where Peter leaps out of the boat and comes rushing to Christ for forgiveness. Many consider this the first meeting between Christ and Peter since his callous denial back on the night of Jesus' arrest, and speculate that Peter went fishing that morning to get away from the ministry and go back to his old life as a fisherman. The common assumption is that Peter, not having faced his Lord until the moment He showed up on the beach, was at once eager to set things right.

That's wrong. Things had already been "set right", because Christ specifically sought out Peter when Peter lacked the ability, the courage, and/or the faith to come back. Much has been made of the angel's post-resurrection words, "and Peter", in Mark 16:7 where the angels instructed the women at the tomb: But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " I agree that his inclusion was not coincidental; it is highly likely that Peter felt so much remorse and shame over his denial that he felt himself disqualified to come back to the Lord. He may have even questioned his salvation.

What Peter Found Out

Even more telling, however, is an oft-overlooked verse at the end of the Resurrection account in Luke 24: "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together ³⁴and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." (emphasis mine). Later, in his letter to the Corinthian church, Paul also mentions this obscure apparition in passing: "...and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." From the timing, Christ's personal appearance to Peter must have been concurrent (or nearly so) with the angels' instruction to the women. Given the close timing, could there have been a sense of urgency in getting ahold of Peter? This is pure speculation on my part, but could it have been that Peter just wanted to run away; to distance himself from the other disciples, and his own sense of failure?

These few verses, which do not detail the encounter between Christ and Peter (perhaps to protect Peter's privacy), are loaded with significance. Peter messed up and was ashamed; absolutely devastated. Although Scripture doesn't explicitly say so, it's reasonable to assume he wanted to repent. He was with John when they went to the tomb in John 20:1-9, so he hadn't completely broken ties with the others. But who was the first one Jesus specifically sought out after His Resurrection? The very one who denied him. The most broken one. He didn't wait for Peter to seek Him out - Jesus initiated the first contact. How cool is that?

Maybe when we get to meet him in heaven, Peter will fill us in on that meeting, and who said what to whom. Given what we know about Christ, the tender nature of a regenerate disciple's heart, the nature of offense and the lavishly forgiving character of the Triune God, it's safe to assume it was a painful confession that instantly became an indescribably joyful reunion. That's why Peter leaped out of the boat - he couldn't wait to get back to see Jesus, with Whom his friendship had been eternally restored. The beach-side charcoal fire was the third post-Resurrection encounter Peter had had with Christ (the second was in the Upper Room, see John 20:19-21), but it was the one where he would be fully restored to ministry and his allegiance to Christ reconfirmed. Forgiveness is instantaneous. Healing and restoration come in time, and God's timing is always perfect.

The Conclusion We Can Draw (Hint: Jesus Christ is the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever!)

Why is this insight so significant? It drives home to me how the Lord really does seek us when we go astray (or just grow apathetic) all throughout our Christian walk. I often think of the parables and the "seeking" of God as being pre-conversion, but once we become His children He doesn't suddenly lose interest in us. While we do need to repent, for our part, before true, intimate fellowship is restored, God goes out of His way to woo us back to His Throne of Grace when we would slink back. Is it shame or pride that keeps us away? Perhaps and odd mixture of both. It is easier to convince myself that He is sternly waiting, teeth clenched, for the penitent to come crawling back on his or her knees before He will even condescend to listen to a faltering prayer for forgiveness than to accept His seeking, restoring, vulnerable grace extended to the wayward. There is a desire deep within the human heart to be pursued. We want to be sought after; to be valued. We want God to like us.

Several times, both in earlier periods of lifestyle sin and more recently in seasons where I become keenly aware of my pride (like Peter, probably recalling his earlier boasting), I have noticed unmistakable overtures from God - small but significant signs confirming that yes; I am still wanted. All I had to do was wonder if I could come back home to Him, or if I would arrive only to find that the locks had been changed. Once, in 2003, I was under heavy conviction for blatant unforgiveness I was holding in my heart. Every time I opened the Bible, my eyes would fall on warnings to the unforgiving. Every Christian book - even the Bible study I was then doing - was focused on the theme. To top it off, I heard two different pastors, in the same week, both preach on the importance of forgiveness to the Christian. Finally, I gave in. "Ok, Lord, I get it. You've made Your point." Immediately, He brought my nemesis into my path in Walmart.

His rebuke leaves no sting. His assurance comes from many different places - through preaching, many times books, His Word itself. God orchestrates circumstances in our lives to illustrate that He's paying attention and wants to draw us closer (like the incident in Boston yesterday). The net result is the same: He's taking the first step towards us, to restore what's broken in our relationship to Him. He doesn't wait for us to muster up the initiative on our own, because He knows that we can't (and even if we could, shame keeps us away). He is not ashamed to call us friends, and as He did with Peter, He will find a way to let us know we're still wanted.

So what are we waiting for?

The Centurion Strikes Again

More incidental words of wisdom from apologist par excellence Frank Turk, over at Pyro:

"...apologetics doesn't win people into Catholicism, and it doesn't win people out of Catholicism. I could give you 1000 reason why I think people join Catholicism -- but there is only one reason to leave -- and it's not because of an argument. The reason to leave Catholicism is actually foolishness when viewed by people seeking a reason: it's that Jesus Christ was crucified, and because death had no power to hold him, He was raised on the third day.

He didn't become bread. He didn't establish a home office in the city of Caesar. But know for certain that He is both Lord and Christ -- so repent and believe in Him.

That's the reason for the hope that lies within us, y'all."

(emphasis mine).

A Closer Look at Transubstantiation

by David E. Lister, published by Moriel Ministries (2002)

Transubstantiation is derived from the Latin term tansubsubstaniato, meaning ”change of substance”. This term was incorporated into the creed of the Forth Latern Council in A.D. 1215.

Transubstantiation is defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s Council of Trent as follows: “By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion (or change) is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent expands this belief by stating: “In this sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ, and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire”. It also explains, “Christ whole and entire, is contained, not only under either species, but also in each particle of the same species.” (Species = bread and wine)

The Church of Rome teaches that when the priest in the Mass blesses the bread, it is no longer bread but Jesus Christ himself and similarly the wine is Jesus Christ himself.

This poses a question. Has this Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation always been taught since the time of the Apostles? Has this doctrine that the bread and wine of communion actually transforms into the actual body of Christ, been understood and accepted by the early Christian laity and Apostles? In the book of Acts, Chapter 2, verse 42 and in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 10 verse 16, the term used for what we know as communion today was “breaking of bread.” The term communion seems to become the common vernacular by the Councils of Elura and Arles in A.D. 314 and again at Nice in A.D. 325. In A.D. 418, the term the Lord’s Supper is used in the notes from the Council of Carthage. Irenaeus used the term Oblation to agree with biblical terminology found in 1 Corinthians Ch. 11:20. Pliny uses the term Sacrament in a letter to Trajan and also to Tertullian and Cyprian. The original meaning of the term Eucharist, was simply thanksgiving and in this sense was used by Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen and others. Justin Martyr, Origen, Eusebius and Chrysostom also call the communion ”Memorial”. The Latin terminology of the “Mass” originally signified the dismissal of a Church assembly. It then came to be applied to the assembly itself, as Eusebius uses it in his History of the Church, and from there it came to denote the Communion Service. It was not until Ambrose, that the term Mass was used to denote communion. At no time in the early history of the church was the doctrine of Transubstantiation used or employed to mean that the bread and wine turn into the body of Jesus. But we do know there seems to be an introduction of heresy that would affect how the Roman Catholic Church would eventually practice “communion,” in the 4th century when the queen of heaven, under the name of Mary, was beginning to be worshiped in the Christian Church, this ” unbloody sacrifice” was also brought in. Epiphanius states that the practice of offering and eating it began among the women of Arabia; and at that time it was well known to have been adopted from the Pagans. (Se Epiphanius, Adversus Hoereses, Vol.1 P 1054.)

With the passage of time and further introduction of pagan practices into Roman Catholicism, a friar named Anastatius, In A.D. 637, rejected the figurative language and employed the doctrine of ”Real Presence”. In A.D. 754, at the Council of Constantinople, John Damascene, a condemned image-worshipper wrote: “The bread and wine are supernaturally changed by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two, but one and the same… The bread and wine are not the type or the figure of the body and blood of Jesus Christ - ah, God forbid! - but the body itself of our Lord deified.” Pashus Radbert the Abbot of Corbie advanced this doctrine even further. In A.D. 818 he wrote a treatise, which finally overthrew both the Scriptural belief and the early church history. He stated, “What was received in the Sacrament is the same flesh as that which was born of the Virgin Mary, and which suffered death for us; and though the figure of bread and wine doth remain, yet you must absolutely believe that, after consecration, it is nothing but the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.” This doctrine was further developed and finally made a dogma by Pope Innocent III.

However, it was not without opposition from within the Roman Catholic Church that this doctrine came to pass. Pashus Radbert writes ”that there are many that in these mystical things are of another opinion.” Others who were against this doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church were Aefric, Abbot of Malmesbury (A.D.905) and Berengarius, Peter Lombard (A.D.1150) and Bede in the 8th Century. The early church fathers opposed this doctrine. They never acknowledged any change in the elements or believed in any corporal presence. Tertullian stated “Christ, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, made it His body by saying, “This is my body’, that is, the figure of my body.” Even Orgien, acknowledges “that they (bread and wine) are figures which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual not as carnal, examine and understand what is said. For if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you.” Both Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Caesarea denied Transubstantiation. Cyril stated, “Under the type of bread His body given unto thee, and under the type of wine His blood given unto thee.” Eusebius qualifies communion as “Christ Himself gave the symbols of the Divine ceremony to His own disciples that the image of His own body should be made. He appointed to use bread as a symbol of His own body.” Furthermore, supporters of Rome and the papacy suggested that “there was nothing in the Gospels that may enforce us to understand Christ’s words properly, yea, nothing in the text (’This is My body’) hinders but those words may as well be taken in a metaphysical sense, as the words of the Apostle, ‘the Rock was Christ’… That part, which the Gospel hath not expressed, viz., the conversion of the bread in the body and blood of Christ, we have received expressly from the Church.” Bellarmine, another Roman scholar admitted “there is no express place of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church.”

Since Roman Catholic Church scholars cannot find a scriptural basis for this doctrine, is it any wonder that those who believe that the Bible is God’s word (and it is complete for instruction in life, doctrine and righteousness), also are unable to find a scriptural basis for Transubstantiation and therefore would reject it as a Truth from God and necessary for salvation. Therefore, as we have been given a sound mind and are instructed to search the scriptures to see what is true and then to hold fast to what is true, we find the doctrine of Transubstantiation illogical! The Lord Jesus at the Last Supper handed the broken bread to the apostles and stated, “This is my body”. However He was in his earthly body, 100 percent human. Yet this doctrine would destroy human nature by having the ability to be in multiple places at one time. Rome teaches that Christ is corporally on the altar but without any “accidents.” Accidents mean color, scent, form, and taste, the very things that make substances discernable. Yet again, we are to deny all logic and sensibility to believe that Christ is present upon the altar!

Christ warned that deceivers would come among us to deceive us and to tell us that He was here or there and that we were not to believe them. Christ also warned us that we were to be on guard against the leaven of the Pharisees, those who teach the precepts of man as the doctrines of God. Again, Rome is at variance with it’s own scholars and the early church fathers, as it teaches a doctrine (Transubstantiation) from men as the precepts of God. With this unbiblical form of teaching in the Roman Catholic Church, is it any wonder that they end up perverting the sacrament of communion by withholding the communion cup from the laity. The Council of Constance in A.D.1414 first formalized this doctrine. Pope Innocent III formalized it later and pronounced it a doctrine and then The Council of Trent (1537) confirmed his heresy. Even though the Council of Constance freely admits, “that the cup was received by all in former times,” they nonetheless go ahead and destroy the sacrament, this precious sacrament that the Lord Jesus Christ himself gave to us. “Do this in remembrance of me”

If you are Roman Catholic, we would ask you to turn to the Holy Scriptures and re-read the passages that teach about this sacrament and see if you can find the doctrine of Transubstantiation without the filter of the Roman Catholic Church. May God open your eyes and may the scales fall from them in order that you may come to His table and enjoy this sacrament, both the bread and the wine, in truth. Then ask yourself can there be salvation in a communion in which it is declared to be a fundamental principle, that the Madonna is ” our greatest hope; yea, the SOLE GROUND OF OUR HOPE ”? (The language of the late Pope Gregory, which was substantially endorsed by the late Pontiff John Paul II). The time is come when charity to the perishing souls of men, hoodwinked by a Pagan priesthood, abusing the name of Christ, requires that the truth in this matter should be clearly, loudly, unflinchingly proclaimed.

Early Worship as Described in the Didache - circa 60 A.D.

"Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not the unity that pleases God. The Church of Rome boasts loudly of a unity which does not deserve the name. It is unity which is obtained by taking away the Bible from the people, by gagging private judgment, by encouraging ignorance, by forbidding men to think for themselves"

J.C. Ryle's 'The Fallibility of Ministers'

Last summer, while I was interviewing my former pastor, Christo Kulichev, for Christianity Today, he reflected: "The problem is, Protestants here in Bulgaria don't know their own history." I believe the same is true of Protestant Christians world-wide. While many of us know the Bible very well, Church history and the background of key doctrinal positions is often not a field many have studied (with notable exceptions....see Pyro's website for some excellent resources and apologetics recommendations).

Recently, I was accused elsewhere on the web of ignorance - both of biblical theology and history. (NOT ignorance of the latest i-phones, quadratic quations, or what's happening on daytime TV, mind you - all of which would have been fair charges. Ignorance of Church history and the Bible. I swear I am not making this up.) When I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that several times in perhaps the last 3-4 months, I have had a Catholic tell me that the Inquisitions never happened. As far as I know, this is not official Vatican doctrine, although the Inquisition archives were sealed until 2004. One may as well deny that the Holocaust occurred. Or claim that the Armenian Genocide was a myth. To deny the horrifying reality of the papist Inquisitions is to be intellectually dishonest. Although the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th century and beyond is the best known, there were four distinct Inquisitions spearheaded by the RCC - ranging from the Medieval Inquisition beginning in Southern France in the 12th century, to the Roman Inquisition that began in 1542. I hope to have time to devote a blog series to this ugly chapter of history, as the post-modernists seem to have abandoned the truth.

I am fortunate to have been a student of modern and medieval history since my undergraduate days at a secular university. In fact, ironically enough, it was there that I became a Christian. Most of my post-graduate research has been in the apologetics field, focusing on Church history from a Christian perspective (not your average History Channel and PBS nonsense!).

To be a student of history is, indeed, to cease to be a Romanist. The following is an overview (provided by several sources) of worship in the early Church, and how they viewed the Lord's Supper. This is a key difference between Catholics and Protestants, the latter of whom follow Scripture and the example of the earliest Church in their understanding of the sacrament.

Thanks to Fundamental Christian at onetruegod.com for some of the quotes.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the consecrated wafer and wine are miraculously changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus in a process they call transubstantiation. This doctrine was a fringe notion until the latter half of the 9th century, adamantly and specifically rejected by Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eusebius, and unknown to the Church of the earliest centuries.

1413. By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.].” Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

"The Roman church would have the world believe she is not an innovator but, rather, continues to observe the religious practices of the primitive church, modified only as a more clear understanding of God’s sacred Scriptures and holy Tradition are attained. Or something like that. Is that really the way things are?

The centerpiece of the Catholic Mass is the Eucharistic sacrifice, a bloodless re-presentation of Christ’s atonement on the cross. The Catholic priest, or “alter Christus” commands the Son of God to come down from Heaven and assume the physical characteristics of a cracker and a cup of wine, that He might be consumed by the priest and the faithful. Other studies offered by Christian scholars and myself have fully addressed the Jewish rejection of human sacrifice, cannibalism and the consumption of blood, all of which practices fly in the face of God’s clear proscriptions. It is not my intention here to resurrect those arguments. Instead, I hope to examine how the early Christian commemoration of the Lord’s Supper was corrupted into today’s present Catholic practice."

Ever since Eusebius wrote the first major history of the Christian church, (see Neil's blog for a great review), people have tended to idealize the primitive church as a monolithic structure with a uniform pattern of worship. Recent research has shown that was far from the case. Converts to Christianity were drawn from a variety of cultures and backgrounds. Lacking a strong central governing body, the various congregations developed individual worship practices and emphasized different areas of theology. It wasn’t until the 2nd Century that we begin to see the incipient development of uniformity.

In the Book of Acts and in Paul’s writing to the Corinthian church, we can get some idea of how the earliest followers of Christ celebrated the Lord’s Supper, but neither source provides much detail. Fortunately, there are other written records which help us to flesh out the bare bones of the biblical record. One of them, the Didache, was rediscovered in 1873. The Didache is a manual for church order and Christian living, probably written in Syria around 60 AD. In it, we have the earliest look, outside the New Testament, of the Eucharist celebration.

The Didache, which recommends praying the Lord’s Prayer thrice daily, provides a clear picture of how early Christians would gather on the Lord’s Day to “break bread and give thanks” an activity in which only baptized believers were to participate. The first activity of the day involved confessing their sins and reconciling themselves with their neighbors in preparation for making a pure sacrifice to the Lord. The actual service, which followed orthodox Jewish forms for prayer before and after meals, began with thanksgiving over the cup and the loaf. When offering the cup, the worship leader would give thanks for the “holy vine of David,” likely a reference to the Messianic community (Psalm 80:8), following up with a doxology, "To you be glory forever". (Note: this is pretty similar to how we conduct monthly Communion services in my Evangelical church. We do so separately from the main worship service, which contains the sermon).

After the doxology, the worship leader would give thanks over the broken loaf, thanking God “for the life and knowledge You have revealed through Jesus, Your Child,” concluding with another doxology. That was followed by a community meal which, though not detailed in the Didache, likely was a precursor of the pot luck suppers we see in some modern churches.

Notice this early guidebook for Christian worship, sort of an early day Novus Ordo, makes no mention of either the body or the blood of Christ? The emphasis is on the gathering of the church body (1 Corinthians 10.17). The worship service as practiced by the first Christians was a “praise-celebration” of the congregation of God’s people, an event where prayers and thanksgiving, interwoven with doxologies, were offered to God. Rome claims the mythical apostolic succession to validate her high priest, the pope, and has developed all sorts of rules and practices to control who gets to officiate at her “Eucharistic sacrifice” but the Didache provides no specifics concerning what sort of church leader was to preside over the earliest Eucharistic celebration. Yet it does give clear instructions concerning prophets, whom it calls the church’s high priests, and how they were to be welcomed and validated.

One of the men Rome honors as an early church father, Justin Martyr, provided details of weekly Christian worship some decades later in his “First Apology,” written to the Roman Emperor about 155AD.

"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”(Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chap 67, quoted in A. Roberts and J Donaldson Edd., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, Books For The Ages, AGES Software, Albany, OR, Version 2.0 © 1997, p. 343-4)

It was not until 637 A.D. when a friar named Anastatius rejected the symbolic language connected with Communion and came up with the literal "Real Presence" that the doctrine began to develop, further supported by Church Councils in the 8th and 9th centuries. (More on that later).

Part II - a look at the beginnings of the Roman interpretation of the Lord's Supper.

Delving Deeper into Hebrews 13:5

Don over at Scripture Student has posted a great entry on God’s command to in Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.”

His friend is facing major surgery, and he is reminded of the Lord’s many exhortations against anxiety. Knowing with certainty that the King of Kings is by our side should flood us with peace. Don asked for personal thoughts or elaboration on the passage, (at least I think that’s what he asked for….had so much on my mind lately, it’s hard to have clarity of thought!), and I remembered this brief exposition/commentary I’d banged out on the related verse in Joshua 1:5 (as quoted by the author of Hebrews).

Rather than filling up the Scripture Student combox, I figured I’d re-post my thoughts over here. It’s funny, reading your own words several years after the fact! I wrote this in an earlier time in my walk with God, when I was only a novice student of hermeneutics (the study of Bible interpretation). Nevertheless, God’s Word was as living and active to me then as it is now, and I sought Him diligently therein. He was always faithful to teach me, and He still is….when I am faithful to seek.

From 2006:

************************************************************************

A little over a year ago, I started a personal study called "The Way of Agape" and have found its principles of dying to self (in order to be a clean vessel of God's love to others) quite challenging, to say the least. According to author Nancy Missler, step one in loving God the way we should is knowing He loves us.

We all say we know God loves us, but many of us struggle to get into our hearts what we know in our heads….that He truly loves us independently of what we do. In addition, the term "unconditional love" does not appear anywhere in the Bible. On impulse, I flipped to the verses listed "proving" God loves us, and near the top of the list was Hebrews 13:5, which contains the familiar promise that we repeat to ourselves to affirm that God is with us: "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."

But do we ask ourselves "what does this mean to Christians, in practicality?" Is it just a warm fuzzy catch-phrase?

Of course, I do believe that God loves us tenderly and personally; but is this just an endearment? If we look at the circumstances under which God promises His presence, we may glean some insight into its application. Seeing the verse in the King James Version helps us realize God’s assurance is individual, and not just collective. The translation uses the you-singular term “thee”, rather than the plural “ye”, which is faithful to the original Hebrew. Many of God’s promises are, in fact, “singular” and therefore personal words to us, but we often miss that in the newer translations. What an amazing thought, that we are not simply one of 6 billion faces to the Almighty; but He is faithful to sustain each one of His children in exactly the way that he or she needs.

If you look up the verse’s cross-references, you see that the author of Hebrews was quoting from Moses in Deuteronomy 31:6 as well as Joshua 1:5. Look at the context in Deuteronomy 31:6 - they were going into battle. Where was the Lord leading them when He gave this promise? Into Canaan – the Promised Land. First He says to them, "Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified". He promises to go into battle with them, and assures their victory. At the beginning of the book of Joshua, the Israelites were about to take on a monumental feat and a trial – to inherit the land they had forfeited by their lack of faith 40 years earlier.

This is not a warm, fuzzy, self-affirming message; it's much more than that, if we learn to apply the illustration. What are our "enemies"? Or, put another way, what do we do battle against? Sin - especially our most ingrained, habitual sins. In Romans 7:23, Paul specifically says the carnal desires “wage war against” the spirit and law of God. Yes, we're dead to sin, but even the idealistic, Spirit-filled New Testament writers acknowledged it's a continual battle. God promises not only to fight the battle with us, but He won't abandon or forsake us when we're in defeat! That's what that verse means.

He won't leave us at the mercy of our sin [give up on us] - "Oh, she did that again. Hopeless reprobate." The context is of battle -- literal in the Old Testament; spiritual for us. This also conjures up Paul's allegory of "putting on the full armor of God" in Eph. 6:11 -- the whole idea of fighting a battle against sin and being soldiers comes through a lot in the New Testament. Paul refers several times to his fellow evangelists as “soldiers” of Christ, again comparing the spiritual battle to a military one. Soldiers on the battlefield never leave their fallen or wounded brethren behind, and God is assuring us in this simple promise, repeated three times in Scripture, that neither will He abandon us when we struggle and fail in our sin. Looking at that promise in its original context forced me to see it in a whole new light.

Many times, when we sin, our first impulse is to “run and hide”. I’ve often felt like God should be throwing His hands up by now! This promise is that He is an Ally, ever fighting by our side. The following verse in Hebrews 13:6 confirms that: “So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"

God Follows up Assurance with Yet More Reassurance...

On the heels of renewing my confidence in His great, abiding love, it seems the message God wants to hammer through my thick head is popping up everywhere lately. The encouragement comes fast and furious.

My pastor's wife has given me a wonderful book by Ed Welch, "When People are Big and God is Small" which deals not only with the fear of man, but the insecurity many of us bring into our walk with God. We're afraid to face our own sin squarely when we have an incorrect view of God. Until we really believe that He loves us, we avoid Him when we sin and think His interest is impersonal. Only when we get a revelation that the one Who hung the stars holds us in His palm can we rest enough in His great love to become truly others-focused. Later in the week, I read the following quote by Welch: “Obedience is post-liberation thankfulness.”

Oh, yes it is. Pretty much summarizes my rambling thoughts of last Friday's entry.

It continues: check out the in-depth discussion of Christ's reinstatement of Peter (the beach-side barbeque exchange of John 21) over at Scripture Student. That guy didn't worry about presuming on Jesus' grace - he just jumped right in!

If you haven't already visited "Desiring God" for your daily dose of edification today, let me quote a wonderful truth explored this morning, about doubts the born-again believer must counter:

J. Gresham Machen, one of the great proclaimers and defenders of the Christian faith in the early 20th century, went through a season of fearful doubt on his way to solid confidence. Remarkably, it was his mother who spoke one of the decisive words of rescue. He tells the story:

The question is not merely whether we can rest in our faith, but whether we can rest in the doubt that is the necessary alternative of faith. We pass sometimes through periods of very low spiritual vitality. The wonderful gospel which formerly seemed to be so glorious comes to seem almost like an idle tale. Hosts of objections arise in our minds; the whole unseen world recedes in the dim distance, and we think for the moment that we have relinquished the Christian hope....

My mother [spoke to me] in those dark hours when the lamp burned dim, when I thought that faith was gone and shipwreck had been made of my soul. “Christ,” she used to say, “keeps firmer hold on us than we keep on him.”

My mother’s word meant...that salvation by faith does not mean that we are saved because we keep ourselves at every moment in an ideally perfect attitude of confidence in Christ. No, we are saved because having once been united to Christ by faith, we are his forever. Calvinism is a very comforting doctrine indeed. Without its comfort, I think I should have perished long ago in the castle of Giant Despair. (J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 561)

I was brought up in a denomination that considered the assurance Christ offers us to be the sin of "presumption". The apostle John extols this wonderful assurance in 1 John 3:18-20, and elsewhere Paul and the writer of Hebrews exhort us to confess and approach the throne of grace with confidence. There is nothing we can or should do to make ourselves more acceptable to God; no "penance" that can earn His favor. Such an attitude is the epitome of pride - to think that our pitiful, penetential attempts can somehow add to the finished work of Christ on our behalf. Like the ritualistic attempts of the 1st century Pharisees to reach God on their terms (instead of on His), man-made divine merit/demerit systems and codified terms of obtaining forgiveness are a slap in the face to a gracious, compassionate God.

Old thought patterns, like old habits, die hard. Reading the Bible and letting it seep down into my soul is the only way to overcome this old fear and compulsion to "make it up to God". Who, I secretly believed, is probably angry at me and needs to be appeased through compensatory "works", both corporal and spiritual.

This belief is a lie straight from the pit of hell, and is one Satan uses effectively to keep Christians in bondage. When repentance becomes penance, and love becomes guilt-ridden duty, we are utterly deceived about God's true nature.

Why is it so much harder to rest in His assured love than to strive for His favor? Because it strikes at our pride, I would guess. Truly humbling ourselves under God's hand is to acknowledge that nothing good lives in us, never will on our own merits, and God loves us anyway. In spite of ourselves; and despite all the times we question the depth of His affection for us. Christ iisn't ashamed to call us His brothers (or sisters, as the case may be). Think of that!

While on earth, Christ walked by faith, just as His servant friends are required to do. There were wilderness moments (even before Calvary), but unlike us, He never doubted. The artwork above is called "In the Wilderness", and it is a great reminder of Whom we are to behold when Satan whispers that age-old lie: "God doesn't really love you. Hath God really said...?"

Renewing our minds with the washing of the Word is the only defense against the doubts, the striving, the fearing we are presuming on His grace...when we just come, empty-handed, just as we are to seek Him. Thinking we need to clean ourselves up before approaching Him is like taking a shower so that we can take a bath.

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? - Romans 2:4

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:8-9

I Just Realized Something...God's Love Really IS Unconditional

God helped me understand something really exciting last night that's too good to keep (although it will probably seem so obvious to some of you readers that you will be perplexed at why this is a "big revelation"). Last night, mid-way through sauteing dinner, God totally corrected me on a misconception I've long held about Him.

The bottom line: God's love (agape) really is unconditional. I was wrong in thinking I can lose it. Looking at the whole of Scripture, we can make a water-tight case for that. This is HUGE to me and makes all the difference. Let me explain......

John Piper writes that God's love is unconditional "in a sense" - His electing love and regenerating love are not conditioned on our response. This is certainly true, but it doesn't answer the question of whether He loves everybody, and if we can "lose" His affection when we (His children) mess up. We're not talking about a saving love - obviously we know salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ and repentance. I'm talking about how He feels about us when we're disobedient and not giving Him our whole hearts.

I've been struggling lately with John 14:21 and John 15:9-11, which make it sound as if His love is conditioned upon our obedience. I am not perfectly obedient, and the harder I try to repent and submit to His lordship, the more discouraged I get. I feared the threat of His withdrawing His love from me. Last night, as I was cooking, I started wondering if the Greek term in those verses might be "phileos", brotherly love/fellowship, which Peter confessed he had for Christ in John 21 (realizing he didn't truly have the perfect, unconditional "agape" love Christ was asking for). It would make sense, I thought, since Jesus is talking about those already in the Kingdom. Perhaps we could understand those verses to mean that if we don't "abide in" or don't obey Him, we forfeit a sense of His fellowship. Estranged relationally, we don't experience the greater intimacy of friendship. The use of "phileos" would help support this interpretation, I thought.

So I checked Strong's, but no; it wasn't "phileos". All of the verses that link God's love to obedience and walking with Him promise "agape". Hmm. This is a puzzle, because taken at face value, it would indicate that God is threatening to stop loving us if we don't please Him, which doesn't add up.

Then I noticed something else - the same verb "agapeos" is used when Jesus saw the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21 - "He looked at him and He loved him"; (he who walked away, never became regenerate); He loved the multitudes; and - most significantly - in all of the verses where Jesus commands us to love our enemies. Consistently, it's "agape" love He talks about - which, by definition, is unconditional and does not expect or demand reciprocation. Why does this matter? Because Jesus never tells us to do something He doesn't do Himself. He loves ("agape") His enemies; those who reject Him; His quibbling disciples; and even the multitudes (made up of people with all different types of hearts).

(I promise I'm going somewhere with this).

So now......if He's talking to His children, why would He "stop" loving them based on imperfect obedience....when He even loves those who hate Him, reject Him, or are indifferent to Him? The Bible clearly states that He loves them. He LOVES them. I'm sure sending those to hell who reject Him breaks His heart. But right now, my focus is on those of us who love Him but mess up. I asked myself this question: "Why, if He even loves His enemies and people before they become saved, would He think less of those trying to follow Him? It's impossible (and illogical)!" So that's not what the verses are saying - something else is implied.

Deeper fellowship and increasing intimacy is to be experienced with obedience to God - this makes sense. Sure, God will love His enemies, (although juustice demands that He must ultimately damn them), but it stands to reason that His relationship with His children is going to be qualitatively different. Looking at the verses about God's love, it occurred to me why Jesus didn't use "phileos" to describe this unique intimacy with God that we have -- it's too weak a word to describe God's love. To promise "agape" unconditionally to His enemies, but only "phileos" to His friends doesn't make sense. It would be like offering the use of your pickup truck to someone who already has the stretch limo you gave him. In fact, I'm not even sure you could describe a love as deep and vast as God's with "phileos" - it sort of degrades or minimizes (cheapens) it.

HOWEVER, the notion of friendship, fellowship, closer intimacy is implied in that love Jesus is promising His "friends". It's not directly conveyed by use of a different word, but all this time He's been telling them how to follow Him and be different from the rest of the world. He's offering them so much more - that friendship with Him - ON TOP OF the unconditional aspect of God's love and concern for them He already promises! If He loves us unreservedly, eternally and unconditionally, He's not going to say, "let's go back to being 'just friends'." That would be more absurd than my saying that to my husband, after 13 years of marriage. Uh, it's a little late....but the closeness of our relationship can fluctuate. I think that's implicit in what Jesus was saying.

This knowledge is HUGE. It's actually very freeing, because even when I wrong the Lord by being apathetic, hard, or even outright rebellious (hopefully that won't happen, but I'm still a sinner), coming back is possible because I still have that reservoir of His love to fall into. He will have noticed and been displeased with my heart, (and I can't expect unhindered fellowship because my heart's not right), but it hasn't qualitatively changed our relationship.

All that to say this: He still loves me. He won't stop, either, no matter what (although I have no intention of presuming on His grace or trying His patience). I think we can make that case strongly from the Bible. If you just take those 1 or 2 verses in a vacuum, you might miss it. This knowlege makes me want to pray, to worship, etc.; it's not "duty-worship" where I feel guilty if it's not enough.

Jesus, thank You for loving me in spite of myself. Thank You for Your unending patience and perseverence with my stubborn, unbelieving heart. I am so filled with gratitude that nothing I can do will make You love me less, and even more - nothing I CAN do will prompt You to love me more. Thank you for enabling me to see this amazing truth from Your Word, and to desire Your friendship and presence above all else.