My friend Tom was a preacher's kid in the same denomination I grew up in. Last week we both tried to remember if we had ever heard anyone refer to Jesus as the Last Adam. Neither one of us could remember ever hearing this mentioned, even out of context. The reason this is so amazing is that we have more than fifty years of combined church attendance in our former denomination. And we went to church services at least 3 times each week and went to Sunday School once a week. We went to countless revivals, campmeetings, and church camps and we attended Bible School every summer. Yet in a very minimum of 10,000 meetings, the two of us never heard anything about Paul's comparison of Jesus to Adam.
There is a very good reason for this. Evangelical Christianity simply cannot justify their doctrine with Paul's teaching on this subject. Paul taught that Adam sinned and brought death to the entire human race. Of course, anyone steeped in Evangelical doctrine certainly understands and believes this half of the equation. But Paul also called Jesus the Last Adam and emphatically proclaimed that his sacrificial death and resurrection resulted in the eradication of Adam's transgression and the redemption of all mankind. In fact, Paul boldly wrote that Jesus accomplishments far outweighed Adam's disobedience.
Evangelical Christianity teaches that all men are fallen because of Adam's sin. And while Jesus helped out a little bit by dying on a cross, man's redemption is still largely up to each individual man. He must accept by faith what Jesus did, repent of his sins, and then strive to live in such a way that will result in his being saved. To Evangelicals, Jesus becomes a "personal savior" providing the believer does all the right things and continues to perform works consistent with that church's requirements for salvation. (It should be noted here that almost all Evangelical churches claim that we are saved by grace apart from works. However, I have never actually been to any church that does not at least preach some works required for salvation.)
At this point, I ask you to click the links and read the entire 5th Chapter of Romans and First Corinthians 15:20-28.
In studying the First/Last Adam comparison, the church is quick to accept the work of the First Adam, plunging all men into a state of sin regardless of his individual level of righteousness or unrighteousness. This is nearly universally accepted throughout Christianity. The church cannot however, accept that the last Adam may have eradicated the result of the first Adam without man's help. You cannot say that Adam's disobedience brought death to all and also say that Jesus' sacrifice just gave some men an opportunity. If this is what you believe, then Adam wins the comparison over Jesus hands down.
Romans 5: 12-21 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Notice the parenthesis. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) End of parenthesis. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
My research indicates that Charles Spurgeon was probably the culprit who made popular the phrase, "Where sin doth abound, grace doth much more abound." He changed the tense of the word from abounded to doth abound and reinforced the evangelical doctrine that sin is still abounding in the world. His conclusion was that sin was everywhere and God's grace was just existent in small pockets throughout the world. In other words, Adam's sin was far more powerful than Jesus' sacrifice.
But Paul shows us abounding grace that overpowered man's sin. And this occurred at the cross, not when a man accepts that grace through his actions. The result of Jesus' obedience, as the Last Adam, greatly exceeded the result of the First Adam's disobedience. If it did not, then we should sing worship songs to Adam and call ourselves Adamites. Thankfully, this is not the case.
I Timothy 4:10 says "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Fathers Day Letter to My Dad
June 15, 2008
Dear Dad,
The older I get, the more I realize how wonderful it was to have you as my father. As a little boy, I did not realize that there were fathers who did not have anything to do with their sons or their sons’ mothers. I never knew there were fathers who did not get up and put in a hard day’s work so their family always had food and shelter. I did not know there were fathers who verbally and sexually abused their children. I did not know there were fathers who routinely beat their sons and told them they would never amount to anything.
I had no idea there were fathers who ran around on their wives and put their families in jeopardy. I did not know there were fathers who, by example, taught their sons to lie, to cheat, and to steal. Later in life, I realized there were fathers who knew nothing about God and who cared very little about morality and always trying to do the right thing.
I did not know there were fathers who had no backbone and would not speak the truth when everyone else was afraid to. I did not realize there were fathers who were ungrateful to live in the world’s greatest country and neglected to teach their sons patriotism. I did not realize there were fathers who gave their sons everything and never instilled a proper work ethic that allowed them to succeed in life.
I took it for granted that fathers who discovered their sons had a little musical talent automatically bought them expensive instruments and made sure they got proper instruction. I thought all fathers encouraged their sons to take risks and follow their heart. I did not understand that all fathers do not model how to be good husbands and create a peaceful, happy home for their kids.
I did not realize there were fathers who lived only for themselves, never sacrificing for the good of their friends and family. I thought all fathers quietly gave money to poor people and expected nothing from them in return. I thought all fathers taught their sons that forgiveness is essential to happiness, even when you are severely wronged.
As I grew older, I came to realize that there are a lot of bad fathers in the world. The years have taught me that I had one of the best. You probably look back and think of things you might have done differently. I am sure you made some parenting mistakes. But I don’t remember them. The good far outweighed any mistakes you made. You taught me how to be a good father to my kids, how to love my wife, and how to put my family first. I am proud of the job I have done as a father. And I learned how to do it from you. Thanks.
Love Always,
Greg
Friday, May 30, 2008
Reconciling Calvinism with Arminianism (Part 1)
A theological tug of war has been ongoing in Christianity for hundreds of years, in search of an answer to the very important question, “How is one saved?” This question was first asked by devout men who heard Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost, and it is still being asked today. Apparently, the question has not been satisfactorily answered as Christians continue to square off in theological debate on the Internet. Over the next several weeks, I intend to reconcile the two most prominent viewpoints and bring peace and harmony to all of Christianity. You sceptics think there will never be harmony within the church. But Jesus prayed that his followers would be one, even as he was one with the Father. (Okay, I am sceptical as well. But I will make a feeble attempt.)
John Calvin’s theology sought to answer the question of salvation once and for all. To understand Calvin (1509-1564), we must consider that his theology was a repudiation of the Catholic emphasis on works for salvation. Of course, this is an oversimplification but it places Calvin’s positions in context.
The Arminian controversy began in Amsterdam when Jacob Hermann (1560-1609), a Reformed pastor and professor of theology, questioned the Calvinistic traditions he had been taught and forged a new and opposing theology. Followers of Hermann submitted his five theological points regarding salvation to the Church of Holland in 1610, a year after his death. (Hermann’s Latin name was Arminius and these believers were known as Arminians.) I blatantly plagiarize Chuck Smith, of Calvary Chapel, in reprinting his summary of Hermann’s doctrine. Smith’s book is available online and is an excellent short history and summary of the controversy.
The "Five Points of Arminianism" included the following:
1. FREE WILL
Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.
2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION
Arminius believed that election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" or his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ.
3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT
Arminius held that redemption was based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own "free will" in order to be saved.
4. OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE
Arminius believed that since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. He believed that God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. He also taught that man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.
5. FALLING FROM GRACE
If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved.
Nothing gets a Calvinist more excited than a theological battle. So they convened theologians in Dort in 1618 to attempt to answer the Arminian claims. After seven months, it was concluded that Herman and his followers were heretics. They were excommunicated and a few were even imprisoned. (Calvinists take their theology seriously. And they obviously take great pride in their tulips, as we shall see.)
The Council of Dort formulated the Five Points of Calvinism that is still taught today. The Five Points of Calvinism were not created by Calvin, but by his followers to counter the Five Points of Arminianism. Again, I reprint from Chuck Smith’s book.
Those in the reformed tradition who answered the teachings of Arminius chose the word "TULIP" as an acrostic to summarize their answer to the Five Points of Arminianism":
1. "T" = TOTAL DEPRAVITY - The Calvinists believed that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.
2. "U" = UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - The Calvinists believed that foreknowledge is based upon the plan and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the "free will" of the Creator alone.
3. "L" = LIMITED ATONEMENT - The Calvinists believed that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In their view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non elect) will be lost.
4. "I" = IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - The Calvinists believed that the Lord possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. They taught that the free will of man is so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible.
5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun.
Over the next several weeks, I will be taking each point and attempting to expound upon the verses used to support each position. Then, we will place these verses within their context and show that both Calvinism and Armenianism fall short of the Gospel of Grace and Peace taught by the Apostle Paul. I highly recommend E.E. Guild’s chart from "The Universalist's Book of Reference" (Boston, 1859) 376-77 as a precursor to our study.
John Calvin’s theology sought to answer the question of salvation once and for all. To understand Calvin (1509-1564), we must consider that his theology was a repudiation of the Catholic emphasis on works for salvation. Of course, this is an oversimplification but it places Calvin’s positions in context.
The Arminian controversy began in Amsterdam when Jacob Hermann (1560-1609), a Reformed pastor and professor of theology, questioned the Calvinistic traditions he had been taught and forged a new and opposing theology. Followers of Hermann submitted his five theological points regarding salvation to the Church of Holland in 1610, a year after his death. (Hermann’s Latin name was Arminius and these believers were known as Arminians.) I blatantly plagiarize Chuck Smith, of Calvary Chapel, in reprinting his summary of Hermann’s doctrine. Smith’s book is available online and is an excellent short history and summary of the controversy.
The "Five Points of Arminianism" included the following:
1. FREE WILL
Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.
2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION
Arminius believed that election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" or his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ.
3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT
Arminius held that redemption was based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own "free will" in order to be saved.
4. OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE
Arminius believed that since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. He believed that God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. He also taught that man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.
5. FALLING FROM GRACE
If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved.
Nothing gets a Calvinist more excited than a theological battle. So they convened theologians in Dort in 1618 to attempt to answer the Arminian claims. After seven months, it was concluded that Herman and his followers were heretics. They were excommunicated and a few were even imprisoned. (Calvinists take their theology seriously. And they obviously take great pride in their tulips, as we shall see.)
The Council of Dort formulated the Five Points of Calvinism that is still taught today. The Five Points of Calvinism were not created by Calvin, but by his followers to counter the Five Points of Arminianism. Again, I reprint from Chuck Smith’s book.
Those in the reformed tradition who answered the teachings of Arminius chose the word "TULIP" as an acrostic to summarize their answer to the Five Points of Arminianism":
1. "T" = TOTAL DEPRAVITY - The Calvinists believed that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.
2. "U" = UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - The Calvinists believed that foreknowledge is based upon the plan and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the "free will" of the Creator alone.
3. "L" = LIMITED ATONEMENT - The Calvinists believed that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In their view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non elect) will be lost.
4. "I" = IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - The Calvinists believed that the Lord possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. They taught that the free will of man is so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible.
5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun.
Over the next several weeks, I will be taking each point and attempting to expound upon the verses used to support each position. Then, we will place these verses within their context and show that both Calvinism and Armenianism fall short of the Gospel of Grace and Peace taught by the Apostle Paul. I highly recommend E.E. Guild’s chart from "The Universalist's Book of Reference" (Boston, 1859) 376-77 as a precursor to our study.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Time for Christians to Step Up or Shut Up
Since 9-11, many of us have searched in vain for the moderate Muslim. We know he is out there somewhere. But when Muslims spew hatred and threaten violence, it seems that you can't find a moderate Muslim cleric with a search warrant. We just want to hear someone from the "Religion of Peace" assure the west that the majority of Muslim adherents are not the hate-mongering bunch they may appear. Of course, the silence is deafening and the unwarranted suspicion of all Muslims continues.
But Christianity has its own versions of the radical cleric. Our most infamous might be Reverend Fred Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Reverend Phelps is famous for his anti-homosexual rants and protests with his followers at high-profile funerals of soldiers and Marines. His cult-members show up with signs proclaiming that "God Hates Fags" along with other unsavory hate speech. They claim that our soldiers are dying because of our homosexual lifestyles in the United States.
I will give Reverend Phelps one thing. He has taken Five-Points Calvinism to its logical conclusion. And those who embrace the TULIP may want to reconsider their flawed theology. That being said, I think it is time for Christians to come out en masse and repudiate Reverend Phelps when he brings his protesting cultists to Cincinnati for Matt Maupin's funeral. (Matt was captured four years ago and his remains were just recently found. His parents have been wonderful as they held out hope and worked tirelessly for the troops. His funeral will be in late April at Great American Ballpark.)
My first reaction to Phelps is always violent. I dream of silencing these idiots with a left hook to the jaw or readjusting their theology with an aluminum baseball bat. But then my Americanism kicks in and I remember why it is important to allow the stupid people to speak freely. Radical idiots always lose when they are allowed to speak freely. People hear their message proclaimed and realize how abhorrent it sounds. So Reverend Phelps must be allowed to protest.
But his protest must not go without opposition. And this is where Cincinnati's Christian community must step up and voice opposition to his madness. I would like to see 10,000 Christians come out to Matt Maupin's funeral and show the world that Reverend Phelps does not speak the majority Christian viewpoint. A quiet, classy counter-protest would be an amazing way to support Matt Maupin's family and send a message to the gay community that they are not hated by Christians.
So come on Pastors. Let's get this done. Or do you, in the back of your mind, agree with Reverend Phelps just a little?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
One Awesome Kid
Friends,
This post is special because I want to tell you about a young man serving in Iraq. His name is Brandon Hutchins and he is my daughter's ex-boyfriend. Brandon is in the Marine Corps and is the kind of young man anyone would be proud to call a son. I did not particularly care much for him when he was going out with Sarah, but he grew on me.
Brandon's mother passed away a few years ago and he was spending a lot of time with his aunt and grandmother, who lived two doors down from us. Our next door neighbors had a nice basketball court in their back yard and we got into some very competitive ball games. Brandon always won. Unfortunately, he lacked the ability to win gracefully. He was always talking trash and trying to get in your head.
The Marines appear to have channelled that energy in a good way. Brandon has become a respectful, thoughtful young man. He is serving with honor in Iraq and I am proud to know him.
If you think of it, please send him a little package or something funny to lighten his burden. Magazines and cookies are always welcome. I am sure he and his buddies would appreciate any note of encouragement they get, even if it comes from a stranger. His address is:
Cpl Hutchins B
2D CEB C CO RCP
Unit 73610
FPO AE 09509-3610
The Conservative Case for Obama?
Sorry I have not written much lately. I have had some health issues and keeping my business running has consumed all the time and energy I have left.
I came upon this article, written by a very conservative history professor from Boston. All through it, I kept wanting to scream, "Yes, that is exactly right." The link is posted at the bottom of this post.
I have been extremely frustrated by the Republican nominee. John McCain embodies everything wrong with American politics. This week, I laughed as McCain cried that he had no money to run a proper campaign. For years, McCain has sought to squelch free speech under the guise of "getting the money out of politics". Now he has no money and he is complaining. Is not this what he has been saying he wants? Hilarious.
Please do not let fear mongers influence your vote this year. That is ALL the Republicans have. Frankly, Obama's pastor seems quite wacky and Marxist to me. But he pales in comparison to John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and Rod Parsley, who endorse McCain. Reverend Wright's liberation theology is just more left wing dribble for those needing someone to blame. His thoughts will never become policy in the United States. But the Armageddon scenarios preached by Robertson, et al., seem to greatly influence conservative politicians, especially within the Bush Administration. Which is more dangerous? I don't think it is even close.
No self-respecting conservative would consider John McCain. He cannot raise money because the conservatives in the party have no true choice this year.
This article is one of the greatest repudiations of the Bush legacy and the McCain candidacy I have yet read. You can click on the link or cut and paste the address below.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html
Peace
I came upon this article, written by a very conservative history professor from Boston. All through it, I kept wanting to scream, "Yes, that is exactly right." The link is posted at the bottom of this post.
I have been extremely frustrated by the Republican nominee. John McCain embodies everything wrong with American politics. This week, I laughed as McCain cried that he had no money to run a proper campaign. For years, McCain has sought to squelch free speech under the guise of "getting the money out of politics". Now he has no money and he is complaining. Is not this what he has been saying he wants? Hilarious.
Please do not let fear mongers influence your vote this year. That is ALL the Republicans have. Frankly, Obama's pastor seems quite wacky and Marxist to me. But he pales in comparison to John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and Rod Parsley, who endorse McCain. Reverend Wright's liberation theology is just more left wing dribble for those needing someone to blame. His thoughts will never become policy in the United States. But the Armageddon scenarios preached by Robertson, et al., seem to greatly influence conservative politicians, especially within the Bush Administration. Which is more dangerous? I don't think it is even close.
No self-respecting conservative would consider John McCain. He cannot raise money because the conservatives in the party have no true choice this year.
This article is one of the greatest repudiations of the Bush legacy and the McCain candidacy I have yet read. You can click on the link or cut and paste the address below.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html
Peace
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Republican Family Values
It is primary time in Warren County and that means it might as well be November. I believe that Warren County has more registered Republicans per capita than any county in the United States. Democrats have about as much chance of being elected as someone with the last name Huckabee. The primary races basically decide who gets elected in November. Democrats sometimes send a "lamb to the slaughter", but many offices go unchallenged in the general election.
I am a registered Republican only because I am too busy to go to the board of elections and switch to independent. Republican rule has ruined my beloved State of Ohio. Ten years ago, I was screaming to everyone who would listen that Bob Taft would be the worst governor we could possibly elect. One of my father's friends is a big wig in the Ohio Republican Party and was behind Taft ten years ago. Every time I see him, I remind him what the Good Ole Boy network did for our state.
As a registered Republican, I get literature from everyone running in the primary. Because I have a history of voting in primaries, I get more than most Republicans. This year, we get to elect a new State Representative. I had narrowed my choice to two candidates and decided to dig a little deeper to finalize my choice. What I found shocked me!
Based on campaign literature, I had selected a young guy named John Rabenold for my top two. This morning, I learned that this guy has been an executive, spokesman, and lobbyist for Check-N-Go Corporation for the past several years. This is one of these payday loan outfits that prey on the poor, the elderly, the military, and college students. They try to get their "customers" in a cycle of past due payments and outrageous interest rates that can be described as nothing more than legal slavery. This is how the guy affords a $600,000 home in Indian Hill, Cincinnati's priciest neighborhood.
Every day, the Dave Ramsey show has someone who is enslaved to a predatory lender like this. They lend money to desperate people knowing full well the borrower has no possible way of paying it back on time. Then they charge interest rates and fees that quickly escalate beyond the original amount borrowed. Since they helped the Republican Congress rewrite the bankruptcy law, the borrower is stuck in a vicious cycle and cannot break free. Many times, family members bail out the borrower and the lender makes out like a bandit. But even if the person defaults on the loan, they have usually paid enough fees and interest that there is still a tidy profit for the predatory lender. This used to be called loan sharking and was illegal. But now, organized crime has been run out of this business because it has been made legal.
Nearly every military base in the country has several payday loan places in the strip mall nearest the front gate. Military leaders have pleaded with Congress to stop them from loaning money to our armed forces and their spouses. Many have become so far in debt that they have lost their security clearances required for sensitive military work. Many have lost out on promotions due to their indebtedness.
This kind of Republican makes me want to vomit. John Rabenold can take his "family values" and stuff them up his ass. I fear the general craziness that goes with Democratic control of the Federal government. But the idiot Republicans have swung the pendulum so far that I am beginning to believe a correction is in order.
Mr. Rabenold's campaign literature talks about family values. But people like this have NO VALUES.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
