Tradition and the Bible

When you tell your Protestant friends or relatives about the "Traditions" of the Catholic Church you're likely to receive some attention. The antithesis to a church that relies on the "Bible only" is not a church that relies on "Tradition only." That is what most objectors to Catholicism would like others to think - that we believe that Tradition somehow trumps the Scriptures. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is an authority, but not the authority. Just as the Church also teaches Tradition as an authority, but not the authority. And the Protestant must understand this and in order to make that happen effectively, the Catholic must be able to effectively communicate this.

One thing to bring up is that Protestants actually believe in Tradition more than they think. In fact, using the Bible at all is a step of faith in the Traditions of the Church. Why? Because there is no way of determining what books belong there in the first place, that is, which writings of the early Church are inspired or not. The Bible existed long before the Reformation and was trusted as "inspired" long before Luther removed certain books. Aside from that issue, the very fact that Protestants have the Bible at all is virtue of Tradition and the Authority of the Church. How else did they receive it? There is no place in the Bible itself that names which books belong there. And in addition, to assert the notion that, "we know in our hearts which books belong" as Calvin, the Geneva Reformer wrote, is the same sort of self edifying gobbledygook the Mormons use to justify their "inspired" texts.

That point has to stick in the minds of any honest reader. The celebration of Church services on Sunday is also a product of Church decisions, not Bible only teachings. If the Bible were the only source that we need to be guided to salvation, where is the unity among Protestants? The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of division! If one disagrees with a particular interpretation there is often one more division. If someone disagrees with that branch from there, another division starts. Sooner or later the religion and system is unrecognizable. One only needs to look at Lutheranism next to a modern Reformed Baptist to see the fruits of Bible only teachings. One was supposed to be the real deal, but then came along another dissident believer who saw things differently.

And here is the point: if the Catholic Church is so wrong in its authoritative structure, how come we still teach the same doctrine for close to 2000 years? That must count for something to any discerning heart.

Summa Blogologica - Question 8: The Existence of God in Things.

We are SO CLOSE to finishing the Summa Theologica's explanation on God's Essence (His Nature). I continuously labor to find fresh and easy ways to explain this without losing any of the "must know" knowledge. This all requires a couple reviews, so please don't get discouraged.

Once you get all of this it promotes a great quality in your reflections on God and you will also be able to understand Him in applications to your life. For example, once you understand that God is unchangeable, and understand that He IS love (not a selective and subjective love, but loves all of creation), we can have a deeper gratitude for His work in our lives, and less fear and worry when we sin. So stick with me!

Question 8 is next. St. Thomas answers the topic of God being "in" things. We say off hand that God is in things all the time (omnipresent), in acts of love, in mercy, etc. The explanation here can be extended to that, but is a more rudamentary in that we are saying that God is in things in basic principal. Don't get too wrapped up there. You'll see. In order to understand God's existence in things, you must understand God's existence at all. Links for that are below.

Remember the difference between an accident (when something is belongs to a thing but is not its essence, like a hat can be black and smelly) and nature (what a thing IS). So here we go:

---------------------------------------------------------

God is in all things as that of a being of an agent, and not simply as a part of their essence or as an accident. By this “agent” we mean that God is the first act (see God's existence as "first act"), and as such must be joined or present to the continuous movement of beings. If it is a being at all, it must be attached to it effect if it should continuously exist; God is the first cause. Further, we can extrapolate that God must be everywhere, omnipresent, due to this logical conclusion. The limitless cannot be limited, and the infinite cannot be finite. He is also everywhere in three ways: essence, presence, and power. Essence by agent of efficient cause (see God's existence), presence by perfect knowledge and infinite existence, power by creator of all things. These are not accidents in other things and so He alone is not particular but universal in His infinity of presence and power.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I said in the first post on God's existence that the concepts there would be used over and over. Here, they really matter. The take-away here is that God is everywhere because as in infinite being, which is a product of His existence and infiniteness, He must be everywhere. Review Question 7 for the infinity of God.

Are you having fun yet?

Summa Blogologica - Question 2: God's Existence

It may be a surprise to some but the argument for God goes back further than Christianity. In fact, when Paul discusses the "unknown God" to the Greeks at the Areopagus in Acts 17, he is talking to a people who have heard some of these ideas but haven't generally accepted them. Remember, Socrates was put to death for his radical views on a single God, and his ethical ideals which closely mirror the teachings of Christianity.

Belief in one God precurses Christianity and was developed outside God's revelation to the Hebrews. Socrates, Parmenides, Aristotle and a slew of others were discussing the idea of an all powerful God.

St. Thomas Aquinas (STA) was "lucky" enough to live at the time in which the works of Aristotle were brand spanking new in Latin. He was able to "synthisize" these works. Not without controversy, he had his fair share of opposition from within the Church for "baptizing a pagan". That lesson is for another day, but what I wanted to unfold here is his contribution to the reasons to believe in a God. And this is how he chose to start out his Summa Theologiae. If he were to write a mass of information about God, he would first need to prove God exists. It was meant to be a "summary" of the Christian beliefs and teachings, but ended up for many to be a difficult read. He addresses it to those with a basic education, but to him, that would have been one filled with a good lexicon of philosophical terms - which many today are without. I'll attempt in this series of posts titled "Summa Blogologica" to ease the pain to bring forth the teachings. So lets dive in!

Question 2 (question 1 was more of a quick recap of nature of doctrine, read it here if you want) answers for the existence of God. That is, how do we know God exists? This is called his "quinque viae" or "five ways" since there are to him, five means of knowing God exists from "proof". Keep in mind this is not the sort of "proof" that is offered in labs where material hypothesis are testable, because God is not a material thing, but instead is on the basis of logic and to many "self evident" or "obvious". Here we go:

The first is motion. Where motion exists there must be a mover and ultimately there must be a first mover, unmoved. For example all things are set in motion by another, but there, by that very rule, cannot be an infinite set of movers; there has to be a prime and first act of motion. This is God.

The second is efficient cause, where like motion, there are effects in the universe and each effect has a cause. Because we know no particular thing which caused itself, each cause in turn has its father cause and ultimately there must be a first cause which is uncaused. This is God.

Third is the concern of possibility or "contingency". Things that are contingent do not have to exist (not necessary) but are only possible. Obviously, things in the universe do exist so there must have been a thing in the universe which was necessary and non-contingent. The contingent undergo change and thus are finally existent like the master bringing the sculpture out of the marble. The sculpture was possible but needed a change to come out of the material. That change is unnecessary, it ever needed to happen. Therefore anything that is unnecessary but is, we cant deduce that a necessary thing brought it into being. This necessary being is God.

Fourth is the gradation, or the degrees of perfection in which things are observed. In things we find varying levels of good and better, more and less, etc., which are smaller levels of an utmost in their category. There are levels of beauty, levels of light, levels of love, and all intellects recognize this but ultimately there has to be a best or a perfect or an utmost.  This utmost is God.

Finally, the fifth proof of God’s existence is the observation of governance in the world. Things in the world act in specific ways as if programmed (governed) like a computer and every computer has a program which requires intelligence; an intelligent programmer. This is God.

To read more go here and have some fun: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

These are VERY important themes moving forward into the Summa so please, if you follow along ensure you understand God as the "first mover" or "first act" or "prime mover" as those terms will be used a "whole heck of a lot" as my brother used to say.

Questions? Comments?  When I was a kid pictures would make reading better, here you go:

Quick Remarks on the Gospels

A short message on the teachings of the Church on the Gospels.

 

Major Teachings: Dei Verbum and the Document on the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted His teachings to ordinary men but through His help and the Holy Spirit they became much more than men and after some time began to fully understand their purpose as well as the purposes of Jesus’ teachings and instructions to them. There are some phrases in the world which we hear throughout our lives and think of as commonplace but as soon as we discover they come from the lips of our Lord or the ink from an Apostle of Jesus, we suddenly hold those words and phrases without hesitation as immaculate and Holy. Our Lord gave us a Church that entrusted these teachings to His Apostles and indeed instructed them to teach them to others (Matthew 28:20 NAB) but oddly enough never wrote a word and the Bible shows no explicit command to write. But they did.

Four of the Apostles wrote the Gospels doing their best to tell their audience about the Jesus they knew, each of them writing about the same Jesus. John, the one Jesus loved, wrote these words and the rest with a very personal feel and flow. Luke, the physician, writes in flavorful detail and diagnosis. Each of the other two have their personalities as well but they all teach of the same person, Jesus Christ. With this our Mother Church holds steadfast on the historicity and inspiration of all four as Apostolic origin (Dei Verbum, 18). In time the Church sorted out the accurate from the not, and assembled them in a symbolic order of the four creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation. We can trust our Church Fathers, why? Because Jesus did. We are His bride and as a perfect groom He promises to keep us from the gates of Hell (Matthew 16:18 NAB), which if she fails to tell the Truth, the gates of Hades have certainly prevailed against her.

Nicene and Apostles Creed x2

This is part two. Welcome back.

Apostles: And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  

Nicene: I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the father before all ages. God from God, Light  from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. 

So why the expanded profession of faith? Was it not enough for the Council of Nicaea to only believe in the three facts surrounding Jesus as we see in the Apostles creed? Surely, outside of this creed we believe many things; but why place something into a creed? What is so important about a creed?

What the average follower might not consider is the progression of the faith. Jesus tells the apostles in John 14:26 that "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit —the Father will send Him in My name—will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you." The first century Christians surely believed in the risen Christ and Peters confession of Him as the Son of God, but these beliefs were challanged in time and added to with heresy. The Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was flesh, and therefore we have institutions of faith in the creed that say "and became man."

The Council of Nicaea devoted its efforts to many controversies but the chief reason for the council was to address Arianism. Arius was a priest in the late second century who eventually denied the deity of Christ - that he was not God. Much of his debate was with the relationship of Jesus and God, making one lesser than the other. Arius ended up convincing many people of this great lie.

Without boring the reader, can you now see why the Nicene creed places more emphasis on the person of Jesus, His relation to the Father, and His nature as the God-Man?

Meditation: focus and ponder on the progress of the Christian faith. We come to understand our faith more clearly when it is challenged by a heterodox teaching. We did not see much in the Bible about an argument for or against a trinitarian God, or a dispute about His birth of a virgin because while those were beliefs of orthodox Christians, there was no need to defend it because there was no adversary to its teaching. Chew on it.

Primative Persecution: Tarcisius

I want to share a story of persecution from the primitive Church.

When the emperor Valerian ordered the execution of bishops, priests, and deacons, Christians attended Mass in basements and in the catacombs outside the city walls. Deacons would take Communion to Christians for whom getting to Mass was too dangerous. On one such occasion, no deacon was available. The priest did not know what he would do until his alter boy, a young Roman boy of 11 names Tarcisius stepped forward after Mass and said that he would carry Communion to some Christians waiting inside the city walls. The priest admired Tarcisius for his grit, gave him the Sacred Hosts wrapped in silk along with a quick blessing, and sent him toward the city.

All was going well until Tarcisius ran into some pagan boys his own age who asked him to come and join their game. Tarcisius thanked them, explained he had an errand to run, but said he would join them later.

“Oh! Christian boy.”  One of the pagan boys sneered. “Is is that you think you are too good to play with us?” And they circled around Tarcisius.

“Not at all,” said Tarcisius. “I have something to deliver and must be on my way.”

“Well – show us what it is! What is the big secret, Christian boy?”

“It is no business of yours,” said Tarcisius, looking each of the boys squarely in the eye. “Now step aside and make way.”

Rather than step aside, the pagan boys closed their circle around Tarcisius, and as they did they picked up heavy sticks and rocks from the ground. One of them shouted, “I bet he’s carrying the Christian Mysteries!”

“Are you, Christian boy?” demanded another. “Show us!”

Tarcisius, clutching his precious cargo to his chest made a dash for what looked like an opening in the circle, but he was not quick enough. The mob of boys closed in around him and they began to club him with stones and heavy sticks. Tarcisius did not cry out, but quietly prayed, ever clutching the Blessed Sacrament to his chest.

The pagan boys beat him to death.

With bloodies hands, they seized the bruised and broke n body of Tarcisius and tried to twist the silk cloth carrying the Eucharist out of his dead arms. Although he had no life left in him, Tarcisius would not let go of our Lord. The boys tried for hours to pry his arms open but they failed and failed again. They left Tarcisius body by the side of the road for the vultures to eat.

After a time, some Christians went looking for Tarcisius, and when they found his broken and bloodied corpse still clinging to the Blessed Sacrament, they guessed what had happened. Carefully lifting the small boy's body, they gently bore it back to the priest, who by now had grown deeply concerned about his young altar boy. Christians set the boy’s body at the foot of the priest, who knelt down and quietly brushed Tarcisius’ hair, matted with blood, away from his face and with his thumb made the sign of the cross on his forehead. At that moment, Tarcisius’ body unfolded its arms and released the Blessed Sacrament to the priest, and all who witnessed this knew that here was a Holy Christian boy who had held Jesus in his arms and who now was being held forever in the arms of Jesus.  

The young boy Tarcisius’ was canonized and his feast day is 15 August.

The story was taken from Catholic Answers magazine from the March-April 2011 issue, p. 11.  

Discernment

Just read this great piece from the Coming Home Network. It is an article discussing a question every Christian asks him/herself, "how can I know exactly what Gods will is in every decision I make?" It's quite long, but filled with great Truth.

Discernment

by Peter Kreeft

Does God have one right choice for me in each decision I make?

When we pray for wisdom to discern God’s will when it comes to choosing a mate, a career, a job change, a move, a home, a school, a friend, a vacation, how to spend money, or any other choice, big or little, whenever there are two or more different paths opening up before us and we have to choose, does God always will one of those paths for us? If so, how do we discern it?

Many Christians who struggle with this question today are unaware that Christians of the past can help them from their own experience. Christian wisdom embodied in the lives and teachings of the saints tells us two things that are relevant to this question.

First, they tell us that God not only knows and loves us in general but that he cares about every detail of our lives, and we are to seek to walk in his will in all things, big and little. Second, they tell us that he has given us free will and reason because he wants us to use it to make decisions. This tradition is exemplified in Saint Augustine’s famous motto “Love God and [then] do what you will.” In other words, if you truly love God and his will, then doing what you will, will, in fact, be doing what God wills.

Do these two pieces of advice pull us in opposite directions, or do they only seem to? Since there is obviously a great truth embodied in both of them, which do we emphasize the most to resolve our question of whether God has one right way for us?

I think the first and most obvious answer to this question is that it depends on which people are asking it. We have a tendency to emphasize one half of the truth at the expense of the other half, and we can do that in either of the two ways. Every heresy in the history of theology fits this pattern: for instance, emphasizing Christ’s divinity at the expense of his humanity or his humanity at the expense of his divinity; or emphasizing divine sovereignty at the expense of free will or free will at the expense of divine sovereignty.
Five general principles of discernment of God’s will that apply to all questions about it, and therefore to our question too, are the following:

1. Always begin with data, with what we know for sure. Judge the unknown by the known, the uncertain by the certain. Adam and Eve neglected that principle in Eden and ignored God’s clear command and warning for the devil’s promised pig in a poke.

2. Let your heart educate your mind. Let your love of God educate your reason in discerning his will. Jesus teaches this principle in John 7:17 to the Pharisees. (Would that certain Scripture scholars today would heed it!) They were asking how they could interpret his words, and he gave them the first principle of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation): “If your will were to do the will of my Father, you would understand my teaching.” The saints understand the Bible better than the theologians, because they understand its primary author, God, by loving him with their whole heart and their whole mind.

3. Have a soft heart but a hard head. We should be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” sharp as a fox in thought but loyal as a dog in will and deed. Soft-heartedness does not excuse soft-headedness, and hard-headedness does not excuse hard-heartedness. In our hearts we should be “bleeding-heart liberals” and in our heads “stuck-in-the-mud conservatives.”

4. All God’s signs should line up, by a kind of trigonometry. There are at least seven such signs: (1) Scripture, (2) church teaching, (3) human reason (which God created), (4) the appropriate situation, or circumstances (which he controls by his providence), (5) conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, (6) our individual personal bent or desire or instincts, and (7) prayer. Test your choice by holding it up before God’s face. If one of these seven voices says no, don’t do it. If none say no, do it.

5. Look for the fruits of the spirit, especially the first three: love, joy, and peace. If we are angry and anxious and worried, loveless and joyless and peaceless, we have no right to say we are sure of being securely in God’s will. Discernment itself should not be a stiff, brittle, anxious thing, but—since it too is part of God’s will for our lives—loving and joyful and peace-filled, more like a game than a war, more like writing love letters than taking final exams.

Now to our question. Does God have just one right choice for me to make each time? If so, I must find it. If not, I should relax more and be a little looser. Here are some clues to the answer.

The answer depends on what kind of person you are. I assume that many readers of this page are (1) Catholic, (2) orthodox and faithful to the teachings of the church, (3) conservative, and (4) charismatic. I have had many friends—casual, close, and very close—of this description for many years. In fact, I fit the description myself. So I speak from some experience when I say that people of this type have a strong tendency toward a certain character or personality type—which is in itself neither good nor bad—which needs to be nourished by one of these emphases more than the other. The opposite personality type would require the opposite emphasis.

My first clue, based on my purely personal observation of this kind of people, is that we often get bent out of human shape by our desire—in itself a very good desire—to find God’s perfect will for us. We give a terrible testimony to non-Christians; we seem unable to relax, to stop and smell God’s roses, to enjoy life as God gives it to us. We often seem fearful, fretful, terribly serious, humorless, and brittle—in short, the kind of people that don’t make a very good advertisement for our faith.

I am not suggesting that we compromise one iota of our faith to appeal to unbelievers. I am simply suggesting that we be human. Go watch a ball game. Enjoy a drink—just one—unless you’re at risk for alcoholism. Be a little silly once in a while. Tickle your kids—and your wife. Learn how to tell a good joke. Read Frank Schaeffer’s funny novel Portofino. Go live in Italy for a while.

Here’s a second clue. Most Christians, including many of the saints, don’t, in fact, have the discernment we are asking about, the knowledge of what God wills in every single choice. It’s rare. Could something as important as this be so rare? Could God have left almost all of us so clueless?

A third clue is Scripture. It records some examples—most of them miraculous, many of them spectacular—of God revealing his particular will. But these are reported in the same vein as miracles: as something remarkable, not as general policy. The “electronic gospel” of health and wealth, “name it and claim it,” is unscriptural, and so is the notion that we must find the one right answer to every practical problem, for the same reason: we are simply never assured such a blanket promise.

Darkness and uncertainty are as common in the lives of the saints, in Scripture as well as afterwards, as pain and poverty are. The only thing common to all humanity that the gospel guarantees to free us from is sin (and its consequences, death, guilt, and fear), not suffering and not uncertainties. If God had wanted us to know the clear, infallible way, he surely would have told us clearly and infallibly.

A fourth clue is something God did in fact give us: free will. Why? There are a number of good reasons—for instance, so that our love could be infinitely more valuable than instinctive, unfree animal affection. But I think I see another reason. As a teacher, I know that I sometimes should withhold answers from my students so that they find them themselves, and thus appreciate and remember them better—and also learn how to exercise their own judgment in finding answers themselves. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” God gave us some big fish, but he also gave us the freedom to fish for a lot of little ones (and some big ones) ourselves.

Reason and free will always go together. God created both in us as part of his image. He gives supernatural revelation to both: dogmas to our reason and commandments to our will. But just as he didn’t give us all the answers, even in theology, in applying the dogmas or drawing out the consequences of them, so he didn’t give us all the answers in morality or practical guidance, in applying the commandments and drawing out their consequences. He gave us the mental and moral equipment with which to do that, and he is not pleased when we bury our talent in the ground instead of investing it so that he will see how much it has grown in us when he returns.

In education, I know there are always two extremes. You can be too modern, too experimental, too Deweyan, too structureless. But you can also be too classical, too rigid. Students need initiative and creativity and originality too. God’s law is short. He gave us ten commandments, not ten thousand. Why? Why not a more complete list of specifics? Because he wanted freedom and variety. Why do you think he created so many persons? Why not just one? Because he loves different personalities. He wants his chorus to sing in harmony, but not in unison.

I know Christians who are cultivating ingrown eyeballs trying to know themselves so well—often by questionable techniques like the enneagram, or Oriental modes of prayer—so that they can make the decision that is exactly what God wants for them every time. I think it is much healthier to think about God and your neighbor more and yourself less, to forget yourself—follow your instincts without demanding to know everything about them. As long as you love God and act within his law, I think he wants you to play around a bit.

I’m happily haunted by Chesterton’s image of the playground fence erected around the children on top of the mountain so that they could play without fear of falling off the side. That’s why God gave us his law: not to make us worried but to keep us safe so that we could play the great games of life and love and joy.
Each of us has a different set of instincts and desires. Sin infects them, of course. But sin infects our reason and our bodies too; yet we are supposed to follow our bodily instincts (for example, hunger and self-preservation) and our mind’s instincts (for example, curiosity and logic). I think he wants us to follow our hearts. Surely, if John loves Mary more than Susan, he has more reason to think God is leading him to marry Mary than Susan. Why not treat all other choices by the same principle?

I am not suggesting, of course, that our hearts are infallible, or that following them justifies sinful behavior. Nor am I suggesting that the heart is the only thing to follow. I mentioned seven guidelines earlier. But surely it is God who designed our hearts—the spiritual heart with desire and will as much as the physical heart with aorta and valves. Our parents are sinful and fallible guides too, but God gave them to us to follow. So our hearts can be worth following too even though they are sinful and fallible. If your heart loves God, it is worth following. If it doesn’t, then you’re not interested in the problem of discernment of his will anyway.

Here is a fifth clue. When we do follow Augustine’s advice to “love God and then do what you will,” we usually experience great relief and peace. Peace is a mark of the Holy Spirit.

I know a few people who have abandoned Christianity altogether because they lacked that peace. They tried to be super-Christians in everything, and the pressure was just unendurable. They should have read Galatians.

Here is a sixth clue. If God has one right choice in everything you do, then you can’t draw any line. That means that God wants you to know which room to clean first, the kitchen or the bedroom, and which dish to pick up first, the plate or the saucer. You see, if you carry out this principle’s logical implications, it shows itself to be ridiculous, unlivable, and certainly not the kind of life God wants for us—the kind described in the Bible and the lives of the saints.

Clue number six is the principle that many diverse things are good; that good is plural. Even for the same person, there are often two or more choices that are both good. Good is kaleidoscopic. Many roads are right. The road to the beach is right and the road to the mountains is right, for God awaits us in both places. Goodness is multicolored. Only pure evil lacks color and variety. In hell there is no color, no individuality. Souls are melted down like lead, or chewed up together in Satan’s mouth. The two most uniform places on earth are prisons and armies, not the church.

Take a specific instance where different choices are both equally good. Take married sex. As long as you stay within God’s law—no adultery, no cruelty, no egotism, no unnatural acts, as, for example, contraception—anything goes. Use your imagination. Is there one and only one way God wants you to make love to your spouse? What a silly question! Yet making love to your spouse is a great good, and God’s will. He wants you to decide to be tender or wild, moving or still, loud or quiet, so that your spouse knows it’s you, not anyone else, not some book who’s deciding.

Clue number seven is an example from my own present experience. I am writing a novel for the first time, and learning how to do it. First, I placed it in God’s hands, told him I wanted to do it for his kingdom, and trusted him to lead me. Then, I simply followed my own interests, instincts, and unconscious. I let the story tell itself and the characters become themselves. God doesn’t stop me or start me. He doesn’t do my homework for me. But he’s there, like a good parent.

I think living is like writing a novel. It’s writing the story of your own life and even your own self (for you shape your self by all your choices, like a statue that is its own sculptor). God is the primary author, of course, the primary sculptor. But he uses different human means to get different human results. He is the primary author of each book in the Bible too, but the personality of each human author is no less clear there than in secular literature.

God is the universal storyteller. He wants many different stories. And he wants you to thank him for the unique story that comes from your free will and your choices too. Because your free will and his eternal plan are not two competing things, but two sides of one thing. We cannot fully understand this great mystery in this life, because we see only the underside of the tapestry. But in heaven, I think, one of the things we will praise and thank God the most for is how wildly and wonderfully and dangerously he put the driving wheel of our life into our hands—like a parent teaching a young child to drive.

You see, we have to learn that, because the cars are much bigger in heaven. There, we will rule angels and kingdoms.

God, in giving us all free will, said to us: “Your will be done.” Some of us turn back to him and say: “My will is that your will be done.” That is obedience to the first and greatest commandment. Then, when we do that, he turns to us and says: “And now, your will be done.” And then he writes the story of our lives with the pen strokes of our own free choices.

This article appears online at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/discernment.htm. Used with permission of the author.

Baptism: Where Sins are Forgiven

There is an issue with the substance of Baptism between the Catholic and Protestant believers. Getting straight into the lesson here is the positions of each:

Protestant: Baptism is the public display of faith done as a Christian’s willingness to follow the example of Jesus. It is not required but should be accomplished early in one’s conversion. As a pastor once stated, “it is an outward symbol of an inward change.” NOTE: Protestants are not unified on this or any definition.

Catholic: Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word" (CCC, #1213). NOTE: Catholics are united on this definition.

The Catholic Church is a huge advocate of scripture and also are protestants. I would love to give the many references from first, second, and third century Christians regarding their agreement with the current Catholic view, but as I know I am defending the Catholic view to Protestants, primarily, I will stick to the Bible. I think personally that John and Acts are the two most stalwart scriptures referencing the need for Baptism. To begin, the Gospel of John mentions the act of Baptism with the word “baptize” four times in just the first chapter; two more times in Ch. 3. John the Baptist says that he baptized with water, but the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit. In Ch. 3 we have the well-known conversation with Nicodemus about being born again. Jesus says, “I assure you, unless someone is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is born of the flesh, and what is born of the spirit is born of the spirit.”  Jesus says these things in response to Nicodemus simply looking at the flesh perspective and not the spiritual perspective. There are in fact two separate baptisms in the Gospel of John: one of the spirit and one of water; one from John and one from Jesus. We know from John 1:31 and especially Acts 19:4 that John’s baptism was to prepare hearts for the coming of the Lord. He preached in this order: 1) repent, 2) be baptized (also reflected in Matt 3:6, Mark 16:16). This is part of “Gods plan” in Luke 7:30 and part of “Gods way of righteousness” in Luke 7:29.

Before we leave the gospels we need to remember an important thing. The Catholic Church has sacraments. These are seven things the RCC holds that Christ instituted.  As an important supplement to this conversation, do not forget that before Jesus left the disciples, He then instituted baptism, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And that’s what Catholics do. Jesus gave three things for them to do as a closing statement: 1) baptize, 2) teach, 3) remember He is there with them forever.

All of this is echoed in Acts. 2:38, the crowds asked, “brothers, what must we do.” “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Again, the story of the Eunuch in Ch.8 shows how the man had to believe “with all his heart” and then could be and was baptized. Peter in 10:48 commands the people to be baptized. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5 all show how baptism was urgent to the Apostles, and also could not be accomplished without believing. I would look up those and see the narrative conveying urgency and requirement. We continually see a common “when they heard this, they were baptized.” Finally, we observe as Acts closes in 22:16, “…be baptized, wash away your sins by calling on His name.”  

I see a continual message: believe, be baptized. I opened by pointing how the RCC views baptism, and that its purpose is twofold: 1) for the remission of sins, and 2) to be raised with Christ. The second is a tradition of the protestant churches as well, which I don’t think you will disagree with. So, the real contention is the first point – that baptism is for the remission of sins. When I was baptized, and I have heard this put no other way besides in the RCC, I was told that it was a mere symbol and that we only do it cause we should, and to follow Gods example. In that opinion I do not see the urgency, the requirement, and I do not hear remission of sin.

I have reviewed the Catechism, #1213-1284, which discuss baptism as a whole issue (it is well worth the read) and do not see where it states that Baptism is required for salvation. I do see however in #1281 that “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.” This is one of several misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Faith, that baptism is required to be saved. You said “if baptism is a requirement for salvation…” but please do not be confused by my words, I was pointing out that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not a requirement for salvation.    

The thief on the cross! This was my last straw against the Catholic teaching of Baptism (finding out later that I was mistake in what they actually teach). I looked at everything, and the last stand I took versus baptism the RCC way was the question, “if the thief on the cross was saved and guaranteed entrance into paradise, why was he not baptized?” First, there is no telling that he was not baptized. Many, many, Jews were baptized by John and others. The other important factor many overlook is that the Gospel was not in effect until Jesus was raised from the grave, which is the chief reason we are baptized – to be raised again with Christ, in His baptism (Romans 6:3). Again, John’s baptism was not for remission of sin but for the preparedness of the coming of the messiah; Jesus baptism was for the remission of sin. Third, and most importantly, baptism by the Church and the Apostles in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was not in effect until Pentecost.  How could the thief have been baptized by a Church that was not existent? How could the thief be baptized in Christ’s death and resurrection before Jesus had died? He didn’t need to be and he probably wasn’t. 

                For a more comprehensive understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding the sacrament of baptism, see The Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can find this online, and look for particularly #1312 thru 1380ish.

The Largest Pillar to Fall

A devout protestant argues for months, becomes Catholic. Oh Lordie, there is so much to tell. and here is the first:

The Largest Pillar to Fall

Martin Luther said, “Justification is the article on which the Church stands or falls.”

                If the reader of this knows anything about the reformation, he/she should know that Luther was not the whole reformation, but got a serious ball rolling for others. So I will often refer back to Luther, and you might say “but I don’t like or agree with Luther.” That doesn’t matter. What matters first is why the reformation happened at all. Bear this in mind.               

                Before Luther, there were many reformers. Most of these reformers wanted a moral reformation – a challenge to a 700 year problem for corrupt positions in the Church, including the Pope.  Luther was a solid advocate of a reformation against the corruptions of the Holy Catholic Church. In his well heard of “95 Theses” there were several issues Luther addressed boldly.  Ever read them? They are available online these days. Have a look. You will see him pointing out three recurring problems: 1) the power of a Pope, 2) the corruption of the church, 3) the issue of indulgences.  Indulgences were the chief issue, but I see three common topics. Either way, these were the mainstream issues he spoke out against in the beginning of his ministry. Even during this time, Luther often was heard speaking that there was no single issue that should cause him to break free from Rome (the Roman Catholic Church). Bear in mind he was no layman, he was indeed a devout monk turned priest ordained and anointed. He wanted the unity of the Church to remain integral in whatever happened. But, his invocation as the Diet of Worms “here I stand,” and the “article on which the Church stands or falls” are central to the reformation.  Why the change of heart? He was probably angry as the years went by. Trying to have someone kidnapped, misleading them to a castle tower, and other things might do that…

                So what was the position on justification exactly? Luther’s view was Justification by “Faith Alone.” In the Latin it is “Sola Fide.” To fill the reader in, the Catholic view of Justification is and has always been ‘Faith + Works.’ To me, as a protestant at the time, this didn’t seem too foolish. Of course salvation was from Faith alone!  I recall to my mind what St. Paul says in Romans 3, about not boasting of works, because it has nothing to do with salvation. When Luther was challenged by scripture such as James 2:24, “you see that a man is justified by works and not faith alone.” Luther responded by calling the Book of James “an Epistle of Straw,” inciting it should be burned. Well there is a serious contention there between Paul and James, right? Does Paul not also say in Galatians 5:6, “what is important is faith expressing itself in love.” Does James not echo this saying, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:27). You can check out the Greek if you please about what I am saying but the best thing to do is take into context the scripture here. Paul, when he says works have nothing to do with salvation was speaking of works of the law, and later is referring to charitable works. Well, hey, so is James. James also is referring to obedience to God in the works.

                Any plain reader can see that the Catholic view is clearly derived explicitly from scripture. This is rare. I will write about it another time, but the doctrines of Christianity are very rarely explicit from the Scriptures; rather they are very implicit. It was only with new heresies that the Church saw the need to define, dogmatize, or opinionate the Churches official position. A perfect example is the Trinity. For now, just know, or learn to see that the primary reason Luther gave us for the Schism is completely unbiblical itself. Heavens knows how this actually took off as an academic apology for Christendom, but I can see where people wanted away from the corruptions of the Church. What’s terrible is that the reason for this break, “faith alone” is found nowhere in the Bible. But, don’t rush into the judgment. Catholics do not count faith as important as works, or vice versa. Any Deacon, Priest, Bishop, or Pope will tell you that the faith-filled relationship is the utmost important! It is a huge misunderstanding that the Catholic Church weighs so heavily on works.

                So I have pretty simply laid it out for the reader. You can do as I did, and check out the debates on youtube, or the ones in text. They are all over the Internet. You will see that neither back down, but I think it is easily discernible that the Catholic tradition of “faith and works” for justification is a better argument, and is biblical as well. And that brings up a big point on the benefit of the Catholic view. They have +2000 years of this belief in faith and works. It is no modern opinion, or a response to Luther, or anything else; it was echoed throughout the ages from the very beginning. This is so important as you will hear many these days say, “well, the Catholic Church does not look like the New Testament Church we observe in scripture.” Point taken. But according to whom? This can drag out a whole separate issue, but really, if we look at scripture only, and ignore traditions, we wind up in a very harmful spot. I know, I will be blasted for that, but I will explain the scripture and tradition thing another day. Stick with me for now.

If you followed along, you saw where in scripture we observe faith and works and not just faith alone. Paul said, “do not get into vein arguments.” Some would call this a stupid argument, “they both teach the same thing.” Well, yes, Protestant pastors will teach that faith without works is dead faith, but will not include works in justification. Whatever the case, if it is such a silly topic then that should certainly create some doubt in your mind for Luther’s and the other reformers (who all agreed, by the way, with Luther) reason for starting the reformation and deciding that a schism with the Church was more important.

That is the greatest pillar to fall for my foundation for Protestantism. I was not the first or the last, but after I realized that Luther was not in sync with the historical church, all of Protestantism began to make much less sense, and was much less necessary, and much less truthful.  So don’t get me wrong, Protestant churches are great, and they preach, mostly, the Truth, but it is not the whole truth. In fact, there is only one Church that says it is infallible.

Please write me with questions: shaunmc04@gmail.com

Six Ways Satan Is Stealing Christmas

After some recent debate and conviction on educating myself  about the Christmas holiday, i decided to go to several sources for the Truth. No doubt, any wide-eyed Christian can observe that the western Christmas holiday appears to be more secular than Christian, but there still lingers the message in a very appropriate way. Judging by the fact that Christianity is practically supposed to be unpopoular, according to Jesus and the Apostles themselves, I would probably think something is wrong if suddenly everybody in the world, or America for that matter, started celebrating the Birth of Jesus, and cut out all the other crap. It's still very fun to give and receive gifts, but what influences historically have there been on the celebration? Below is the "Position" page for Christmas from the John MacArthur Grace To You website (http://www.gty.org/). I think there are some things that he didn't include, such as the co-observance of Haunakah, and some other Hebrew/Jewish facts, but this is a very important read. Be convicted:

The majority of people in the world will miss the next Christmas. But how can that be? How can anyone miss Christmas, given the amount of advertising, publicity, and promotion the holiday receives each year? Because although many celebrate Christmas every year, most don't know what it's about. In spite of all the media promotion of Christmas, the majority of people will miss it because it has become so obscured.
For those of us who know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, Christmas is a time to focus on His birth. But even we can get caught up in the swirl of activity around Christmastime and can miss it in a practical sense. Satan has so cluttered the Christian concept of Christmas with such needless paraphernalia that its true meaning is easily lost.

A Brief History of Christmas
Most scholars doubt that December 25 th is the true date of Christ's birth. There is no biblical support for it, and some against it. That date was decided upon by the church in Rome in the fourth century. They had a specific reason for doing so.
Many of the earth's earliest inhabitants were sun worshipers because they depended on the sun's yearly course in the heavens. Most people held feasts at the time of the winter solstice (mid-December)--a time when the days were shortest. They built bonfires to give the sun god strength and bring him back to life again. When it became apparent that the days were growing longer, there was great rejoicing.
The fathers of the church in Rome decided to celebrate Christ's birth on the winter solstice. It was their attempt to Christianize the popular pagan celebrations. But they failed to make the people conform. Instead the heathen festivities continued, and we are left with a bizarre marriage of pagan and Christian elements that characterizes our modern celebration of Christmas.

The following examples will give you some idea of how much pagan customs make up what we know as Christmas.

To the Romans the month of December marked the Festival of Saturnalia (Dec. 17-24). One of their most common customs during that festival was giving gifts to one another. As far as we know that is where the idea of exchanging presents came from. The evergreen wreath also derives from the Saturnalia festival, during which homes were decorated with evergreen boughs. The Druids of England gathered sacred mistletoe for their ceremonies and decorated their homes with it. It is believed that the first Christmas tree was instituted by Boniface, an English missionary to Germany in the eighth century. He supposedly replaced sacrifices to the god Odin's sacred oak with a fir tree adorned in tribute to Christ. Certain accounts claim that Martin Luther introduced the Christmas tree lighted with candles.

"Santa Claus" is a contraction of St. Nicholas, a bishop in Asia Minor during the fourth century known for his extraordinary generosity. He was later associated with giving presents at the end of the year. St. Nicholas was adopted by the Netherlands as the patron saint of children. On St. Nicholas eve, the children would leave their shoes filled with hay for the saint's white horse.

No wonder so many people miss Christmas. The simplicity of the birth of Christ is drowned in a sea of traditions, many being pagan in origin. Even worse than that, when Christ was born in Bethlehem , most people of that day missed it. In the following gospel accounts, we will see six ways people missed Christmas, and learn how to avoid making the same mistake ourselves.

Ignorant Preoccupation
Luke 2:7 says, "[Mary] gave birth to her firstborn Son, and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." The first person who missed Christmas was the innkeeper. He was unable to take in Mary and Joseph because he had no room for them. Apparently he was indifferent to their plight--there is no indication from Scripture that he called for any help.

Notice that verse 7 says, "She gave birth to her first-born son." Mary herself gave birth to Jesus. By herself she wrapped Him in cloths. Joseph was there to help, but if he was anything like most young fathers, he would have been of little help. Middle-eastern people are hospitable, kind, and caring. They are not barbaric. They are not the kind of people who would leave a woman alone to have her baby. But in this case, they did. Where were the midwives? You'd think the innkeeper would have known someone who could have helped.

Luke tells us she laid Him in a manger, which is an animal feeding trough. The cloths she wrapped Jesus in were long strips of cloth. Whenever an infant was born, immediately the baby was cleaned. Then the baby's limbs and body would be wrapped in these swaddling cloths and then wrapped in an outer blanket. That was a duty normally carried out by a midwife. But Mary had to do it all herself. Commentator G. Campbell Morgan wrote, "Think of the pathos of it. 'She brought forth;' 'she wrapped Him in swaddling clothes.' It is very beautiful, but oh, the pity of it, the tragedy of it, the loneliness of it; that in that hour of all hours, when womanhood should be surrounded by the tenderest care, she was alone. The method of the writer is very distinct. She with her own hands wrapped the Baby around with those swaddling cloths, and laid Him in the manger. There was no one to do it for her. Again I say, the pity of it, and yet the glory of it to the heart of Mary" (The Gospel According to Luke [Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1931], p. 36).

We don't know anything about the innkeeper because the Bible doesn't say anything about him. Some commentators speculate that Jesus was born in a stable some think He was born in a cave, and others believe he was born in an open courtyard at the inn. One thing we do know: whatever hospitality Mary and Joseph hoped to find, they found none--they were turned away.
Why did the innkeeper miss Christmas? I think the simple answer is preoccupation. He was busy. His inn was full because a census was being held in Bethlehem . The city was bulging with people whose ancestors came from there. Since Bethlehem was the city of David , all those who were in the line of David were there, including Joseph and Mary. The innkeeper wasn't necessarily hostile and unsympathetic; he was just busy.

Many people are like the innkeeper. The chambers of their souls are filled with needless things--with stuff that doesn't matter. As a result, they miss the Christ of God. Our society is filled with the unnecessary, the insignificant, and the meaningless. We spend a fortune to amass things so we can let our children fight over them when we die. And our time is eaten away by the demands our things place on us.

People miss Christ at Christmastime because He is crowded out by a world that dictates what they should think, do, and buy. Like the innkeeper, people today are preoccupied. The innkeeper didn't know anything about the baby Mary gave birth to, and neither do they. They don't know who Christ is and they don't know why He came. Instead, they're ignorantly preoccupied with the mundane and the meaningless. How sad it is that so many people live their lives in pursuit of such, only to wake up one day in eternity without God.

Jealous Fear
In Matthew 2 we meet another man who missed Christmas: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem , saying, 'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.' And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.... Then Herod secretly called the magi, and ascertained from them the time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem , and said, 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him'" (vv. 1-3, 7-8). Herod was the king of the land. He feigned his desire to worship Jesus Christ, but he was fearful because One had been born who was called the King of the Jews. The Greek word translated "troubled" in verse three means "to be agitated" or "stirred up." It carries the idea of total panic. Herod panicked. Why? He was afraid of Jesus--afraid of another king. Let's see why.
Julius Caesar appointed Herod's father, Antipater, to be procurator, or governor, of Judea under the Roman occupation. Antipater then managed to have his son Herod appointed prefect of Galilee . In that office Herod was successful in quelling the Jewish guerrilla bands who continued to fight against their foreign rulers. After fleeing to Egypt when the Parthians invaded Palestine, Herod then went to Rome and in 40 B.C. was declared by Octavian and Antony (with the concurrence of the Roman senate) to be king of the Jews. He invaded Palestine the next year and, after several years of fighting, drove out the Parthians and established his kingdom.

Because he was not Jewish, but Idumean (an Edomite), Herod married Mariamne, heiress to the Jewish Hasmonean house, to make himself more acceptable to the Jews he now ruled. He was a clever and capable warrior, orator, and diplomat. But he also was cruel and merciless. He was incredibly jealous, suspicious, and afraid for his position and power. Fearing a potential threat, he had the high priest Aristobulus, his wife's brother, drowned--after which he provided a magnificent funeral where he pretended to weep. He then had Mariamne herself killed, and then her mother and two of his own sons. Five days before his death (about a year after Jesus was born) he had a third son executed. One of the greatest evidences of his bloodthirstiness and insane cruelty was having the most distinguished citizens of Jerusalem arrested and imprisoned shortly before his death. Because he knew no one would mourn his own death, he gave orders for those prisoners to be executed the moment he died. Thus he guaranteed that there would be mourning in Jerusalem .

That barbaric act was exceeded in cruelty only by his slaughter of "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16 ). By that action he hoped to kill any threat to his throne from the One the magi said had been born King of the Jews.

Why did Herod miss Christmas? Jealous fear. Lest you think there are no more Herods in this world, you need only read the daily newspaper. Man is depraved. There are Herods in every society. But there is a greater lesson for all humanity. Many people miss Christmas because of the same kind of fear Herod had. Herod was afraid that someone else would take his throne. Today people are fearful of giving up their own plans, priorities, values, and morals. They don't want to come to Christ because He will cramp their style--He will lay claim on their lives. That means they will have to alter the way they live. The media tells people to do their own thing, master their own fate, and chart their own destiny. The world is full of kings who will not kneel before Jesus Christ, so they miss Christmas just like Herod.
What about you? Have you said no to Jesus Christ because you are afraid of the claim He will lay on you? Do you want to be the lord and master of your life and the king of your little kingdom? That's tragic--His kingdom is so much more glorious!

Prideful Indifference
Once Herod learned from the wise men that a child would be born who would be King of the Jews, he gathered "together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, [and] began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. And they said to him, 'In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet, "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a Ruler, who will shepherd My people Israel"'" (Matthew 2:4-6). Herod called in the experts.

The chief priests consisted of the high priest, the captain of the Temple police, and the best of the other priests--those who had great administrative, teaching, and leadership skills. For the most part the chief priests were Sadducees. The scribes were primarily Pharisees. They were the linguists and interpreters who understood the culture and history of the biblical data. Those two groups knew where the Messiah was to be born because they knew Micah had prophesied that " Bethlehem was to be His place of birth (5:2). One thing the Jewish nation had been looking for, and still does to this day, was the Messiah. They had been waiting for a deliverer throughout their history, especially while under Roman oppression. However, these priests and scribes were unwilling to travel the few miles to find out if this baby might be the Messiah.

Why did they miss Christmas? Indifference. They didn't care. They had all the facts, but they didn't need a Messiah. Why? Because they were self-righteous--they saw themselves as perfect keepers of the law. In their minds they were all God could ever ask of them. You could say they were filled with proud indifference because indifference is always a result of pride. There was no room for the Son of God in their system. When the grown child arrived on the scene, they hated and despised Him. So they plotted His murder and screamed for His blood.

Jesus pinpointed their indifference in a stinging rebuke from Matthew 9. "I happened that as He was reclining at [the] table in the house, behold many tax-gatherers and sinners came and joined Jesus and His disciples" (v. 10). Jesus sat down to this meal with people who needed His help: outcasts, tax collectors, traitors, and sinners. "When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, 'Why does your teacher eat with the tax-gatherers and sinners?' But when He heard this, He said, 'It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are ill. But go and learn what this means, "I desire compassion, and not sacrifice," for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners'" (vv. 11-13). When the Pharisees held a feast, they invited self-righteous people. When Jesus held a feast, He welcomed those who knew they were sinners and were desperately aware of their need for a Savior.

Many people today miss Christmas because they don't realize they are sinners. Thus they ignore Christ. They don't show any interest in the Savior because they don't understand their need to be saved. They don't understand that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)--that sin plummets people into an eternal hell. Consequently they ignore the remedy because they don't even know they have the disease.

Religious Ritual
Luke 2 indicates another group of people who missed Christmas: "in the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them" (vv. 8-9). The angel proclaimed the birth of Christ, and the shepherds went to Bethlehem to see Him. Verse 20 says, "The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them." Out of all the people in Jerusalem , God singled out shepherds to receive the great news about the birth of Christ.

Shepherds were a despised group of people. They couldn't maintain all the ceremonial washings and activities because they were busy tending to the sheep. Yet no on else from the city came to see the Christ child except these "unclean" shepherds. However, two special people did take note of Him when He was brought into the city. Luke 2:25-26 mentions Simeon--a man who "was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel ; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ." Luke 2:36-38 tells us about Anna, a widow who saw the Messiah in the Temple , and who "continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem " (v. 28).
However, the mass of people in Jerusalem missed Christmas. The birth of Christ took place only a few miles away. It was the fulfillment of all their dreams and hopes--the event that would change the destiny of the world--but they missed it. Why did they miss it? Religion. They were so busy with the rituals of their religion that they missed the reality of His birth. When Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:13), their answer was: "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets" (v. 14). All the speculations were wrong. Jesus didn't fit into the religious system of His day. And the people knew He didn't after He gave the Sermon on the Mount.

Religion will damn a soul faster than anything if it is anything less than true worship of the true God. A false religious system gives a person a place to hide--a place where he can mask his spirituality. People steeped in various cults talk about God, Christ, and Scripture, but they don't know Christ. They are lost in the midst of religion. So the people of Jerusalem missed Christmas while they were being religious.

Idolatry
The Romans also missed Christmas. Micah's prophecy that the Christ child would be born in Bethlehem was set in motion by a Gentile emperor. Luke 2:1-2 says, "It came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria ." The Roman soldiers registered the people and took the census.

Throughout the life of Christ we see the presence of the Romans. Before His death Christ appeared before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea (John 18:28-40). He was executed by the Romans (Matthew 27:27-36). Roman guards lied about His resurrection, propagating a story to cover up the reality that He rose from the dead (Matthew 28:11-15). They all missed Christmas because of their idolatry: they worshiped their own gods. Christ didn't fit in with them. They worshiped a multitude of gods, and the pinnacle of their worship was emperor worship. So in the midst of their pagan idolatry they missed Christmas.

The world today is full of people who worship their own gods. They don't worship idols like they did at the time of Christ, but we still have idols and gods. Some people worship money. Some people worship sex. Others worship cars, boats, and houses. Some worship power and prestige. Those things are the pagan gods of today--the idols of the twenty-first century. And if that is what you're worshiping, you'll miss Christmas, too. You may receive some presents, eat a big dinner, and enjoy a beautifully decorated pine tree, but you'll miss Christmas.

Over-Familiarity
Perhaps the saddest of all, the people of Nazareth missed Christmas. Luke 2:39-40 says, "When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth . And the Child continued to grow and became strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him." When Jesus returned to Nazareth , He was unlike any other child in Nazareth . He accompanied His parents to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover when He was twelve years old. He proceeded to confound the doctors of theology in the Temple (Luke 2:41-47). He spent thirty years of His life in Nazareth , yet the residents failed to recognize Him.

Luke 4 unveils the tragedy that took place when Jesus revealed His identity to the Nazarenes: "He came to Nazareth , where he had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.' And He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon Him. And He began to say to them, 'Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.' And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, 'Is this not Joseph's son?' . . . . And He said, 'Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his home town'" (vv. 16-22, 24). The people of Nazareth missed Christmas because of over-familiarity. They knew Jesus as Joseph's son, and they didn't view that as anything special. After Jesus finished speaking in the synagogue, the people "rose up and cast Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, He went His way" (vv. 29-30).

Over-familiarity is a deadly thing. I come across so many people who say they were raised in a Christian environment but are not Christians. Fear grips my heart when I hear that. Over-familiarity strangles conviction. When you've heard something so many times without doing anything about it, such familiarity can breed contempt. Mark 6:6 gives us Christ's own analysis of the people of Nazareth : "He wondered at their unbelief." Matthew 13:58 adds, "He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." Over-familiarity with Christmas truth can breed a stony heart. You had better respond while your heart is soft, or your heart will become hard and you won't have the opportunity to respond (Proverbs 29:1).

Conclusion
There are many ways to miss Christmas: ignorant preoccupation, ritual, idolatry, and over-familiarity. But behind all those reasons is unbelief. Many people simply refuse to believe in Jesus Christ. The apostle John said, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:10-12). If you've been missing the reality of Christmas in your life, know that if you receive the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in His name, Christmas will become real to you. It can happen today; and it's between you and God (2 Corinthians 6:1-2; Romans 10:8-11).

On Harold Camping (the rapture guy)

I started this blog today to write about Harold Camping, and the engrossing approach I see many Christians (even those I have come to respect) take to his matters. First and foremost I do not want to rant, and I do not see myself as a modern day Paul, Peter, or John. But I do want to interject some criticism of the people so willing to slam this man and the effect it has on the rest of Christendom, our image as the body of Christ, and offer the better approach to said subject.

Timeline: Camping made predictions that the Rapture or other specific end times events would occur in 1988, 1994, most recently 21 May 2011, and just the other day 21 Oct 2011. He made statements that "God was done saving Christians." Those are the facts. Now leave them there.

There have been several reactions within the Christian community: e.g.: posting commentary related to Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36, "Now concerning that day and hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father only;" to people downright lighting the man on fire. Those who aren't Christians signed up via Facebook for "post rapture looting," and others downright lit the man on fire; others scoffed at the prophecy Camping made and the Bible altogether.

So let's get it straight: where in the Bible does it mention a "rapture." Nowhere. That would be like the Bible using the term "dinosaurs," it simply wasn't in the vernacular, but the concept of what Christendom has come to define as the "rapture" is evident in several parts of the New Testament:

Matthew 24:40, "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and one left."
I Thessalonians 4:16-17, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel's voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will always be with the Lord."
In Revelation, the word "Church" is used several times until Chapter 4, then several terrible events occur on Earth." (eek!)

No doubt, a similar concept - the resurrection of the dead - is frequently explored in the Bible and very prominently in the New Testament: (see Matthew 16:27, 24:30-31, 25:31-32, 26:64, Mark 12:18-27, 13:26-27, Luke 17:26-35, John 5:21, 5:28-29, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 6:14, 15:12-32, Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 3:4, 2 Peter 3:8-10,  Revelation 1:7), and probably a host of others that I am forgetting to include. Pretty interesting when you think of all the movies in the last 10-20 years where the "living dead" or "zombie" is portrayed, and is assumed to be largely fictional. Call me Harold Camping, but I believe the media and the entertainment industry will have made such a common reference and usage of the "resurrected" that when the Bible's end time prophecies are revealed masses of people will either be indifferent, or completely consumed with fear! Their dependence on others telling them how to feel will not even elicit a response in orientation to the Lord; not for most of them anyhow. This isn't the first time it's happened on a wide scale. If you recall, shortly after Jesus' death on the cross, "and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead" (Matthew 27:52). Point is: The Bible is not to be taken lightly.

But back to Camping. Other Christians have created their own web domains used to respond to Camping. Take for instance www.rapturefail.org who self describes:

"RaptureFail was set up to allow people around the world to catalogue the failure of Harold Camping’s Rapture prophecy for the 21st of May 2011.

We’re now doing it all over again for the new date set by Camping, 21st of October 2011. This time round we’re inviting you to download a flyer, add your name to it and take a photo of yourself holding it, add it to our Flickr page and then see yourself in the gallery!

As Christians who take the Bible seriously we believe that “prophecies” like these demean the church’s witness in the world. The purpose of this site is to demonstrate very clearly (and to mock gently) that this is a false prophecy and that Harold Camping is a false prophet."

Oh man... "Catologue the failure?" And they think Camping is "demeaning the Church's whitness in the world?" I agree with the simple fact the Christians need to be educated, to discern correctly, and to keep each other accountable. Does anyone else see the problem with this? Several Christians are still making statements like, "survived the rapture twice in one year." (first of all you don't "survive" the rapture, because the event brings you into real live). Digressing... I'll lay it out plain and simple: those who are not believers have their eyes fixed on Christians waiting for them to make a mistake. Camping made a mistake, and teaching your weaker-in-the-faith friends, or teaching nonbelieving friends that, for lack of better words, 'this is not what every Christian comes to understand,' is useful. But let it go! The world knows he did not pass the test, so let it go! By mentioning his failure over and over do you not see that you are not opening up the Gospel to the world? Instead, you are showing an example that it is fine to attack others, call them failures, present a message of rejection, and condemn them. What about forgiveness? Should you forgive Harold Camping? Yes. Why? "Forgive others as God has forgiven you." and "If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins." It's a matter of the heart. If you recognize by now that you have the wrong approach to Camping, even in the slightest amount, you should seek forgiveness in your heart for Harold and pray for him. Why forgiveness? We forgive only when we feel we have been wronged. Even if you don't personally feel wronged, you still feel you association is misrepresented.

Do you see the division that is possible when you choose to publicly scorn someone like Harold Camping? Please don't do it any longer, and gently counsel those of your friends that do. It reminds me of the reactions to Osama Bin Laden's death. The masses were fired up. But many forgot that this man was not saved. On "180 The Film," the host asks people, "you have Hitler in your sights, clear shot, perfect day, do you take the shot?" I bet without even thinking of the consequences, many would say "yes."

Have I made the point clear? Christians are at an age in history where even in the "free world" we are under fire. We are seen a bigots, judgemental, fear mongering, haters. Some of it I will stand by, strong. But what I will refuse to do is walk in a spirit that is no different from that of the world. I will not add doctrine, scripture, and "good quotes" to my public life, while in my heart practice malcontent, division, and come to live a life or say things that open the doors for unbelievers to have yet another reason to not want to investigate the claims of Christ, the efficacy of prayer, the guidance in prophecy, and the credibility of the Bible. 

Remember this: what you invite in your heart stays there; what is in your heart comes out of your mouth; what comes out of your mouth reveals your character; and your character shapes your legacy.

Make yours a legacy worth reading about -- even if it requires you to humble yourself.