A Defense of the Trinity

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

Christianity is monotheistic - there is one God.  But it is also trinitarian - three persons in the Godhead (three in one, "triple unity", trinity).

Obviously, understanding the fundamental nature of God is a hard problem.  He is infinite and holy, while we are finite and not.  But God has stooped down to our level to reveal Himself, and we must try to reconcile what has been revealed.

Attacks on the Trinity usually come in one of two forms:

1. Jesus is not God (Arianism)
2. God is not three "persons", but rather, three "modes", "roles" or "forms" (Sabellianism, or modalism)

Let us address the first point first.

1. The Old Testament (Is 9:6) says the child born unto us will be called the "mighty God" and "everlasting Father".
2. Sin is an offence, and only the one offended can forgive.  When Jesus forgives sins, He is claiming to be God (the people at that time understood this, and sometimes took up stones against Him)
3. In Hebrew the term "son", in the metaphorical sense, means to have the nature and attributes ("son of destruction" is a destructive person).  We think of "son" as derivative (less than), but that is not the original meaning.  "Son of God" is claiming to be God (again, the people at that time understood this, and took up stones).
4. God is love, and love is a relationship (there must be some object for the love).  Under orthodoxy, the three Persons love each other.  Apart from that, it is hard to say what God's love is.

As to the second:

1. We see all three Persons present at Jesus' baptism.  (Also, there are two other occasions where the Father speaks from Heaven to Jesus on Earth).
2. God is love - number four above.
3. Jesus repeatedly prays to the Father.  Is Jesus addressing Himself?
4. We see the Trinity at work in many places.  The Resurrection is attributed to all three Persons.  Salvation is the work of all three.

Finally, it is good to note that no one would fabricate such a hard doctrine.  The easy way would be to support modalism or Arianism (Arianists excercised a great deal of power for a time).  But we cannot deny what the Bible teaches, God is Three in One.

Christology

As we've seen from the "Know Your Heretics" series, Christology can be a hard subject, with lots of possible error modes.

The orthodox position is well captured by the Chalcedonian creed:

    "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
    truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
    consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
    in all things like unto us, without sin;
    begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
    one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
    the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
    as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." (emphasis added)

The highlighted portions allow us to categorize the Christological heresies:

1. Denial that Christ is God
1. Arianism (and Ebionism)
2. Adoptionism (that a human Jesus became divine at some point)
2. Denial that Christ is one person with two natures (and two wills)
1. Nestorianism (two persons for the two natures)
2. Apollinarism (a human person with a divine spirit or mind)
3. Docetism (spirit only)
4. Monothelistism (one will for the two natures)
3. Unmixed ("inconfusedly")
1. Monarchianism (the idea the divine overrides the physical)
2. Monophysitism (mixing of the two natures), which leads to Patripassionism - the idea that the Father suffered on the cross)

Monophysitism is mentioned briefly in my post on Nestorianism.

Hyper-dispensationalism

An interesting set of posts from AOmin (the first, which points to the second).

In the first Jamin says:

"consistent Dispensationalism is (or at least, should be) Hyper-Dispensationalism"

This is a very interesting statement. It's been a long time, but I have mentioned my own leanings towards dispensationalism. Hyper-dispy is definitely heresy, let's take a look...

Jamin sums it all up in one block of the second (older) post:

"Hyper-Dispensationalism teaches that there are two gospels in the New Testament, that Jesus and Peter taught works-righteous salvation, that all forms of water baptism are unnecessary and 'dangerous,' that the Great Commission in Matthew’s gospel is inapplicable for anyone today, and that the teaching in Paul’s epistles are the only relevant sources for doctrine in the church."

This is a remarkable statement (on the HD side, I assume Jamin is representing them accurately).

The only online source is the "Berean Bible Society".

Here we see the "other" aspects of dispy I mentioned in my post - "central interpretive motif". From fact 1:

"The reason for a right division of the Bible is because of God's two distinct purposes: (1) His purpose concerning Israel and the world according to PROPHECY, and (2) His purpose concerning the Gentiles in this present age according to the MYSTERY revealed to Paul. God doesn't want us to confuse the teaching of these two purposes. He has very graciously given us the key for a proper understanding of this. "

This definitely seems to be the root of the problem. They are assuming two purposes for God, which I don't think can be exegeted directly anywhere. God has one purpose - to glorify Himself.

Fact 2 is just wrong:

"This proves conclusively that Paul did not preach what the 12 Apostles preached."

This sets the Bible against itself. I'd need to read the academic works to see where this is coming from and how it is reconciled. It doesn't seem like it could stand for long.

Everything else seems to follow naturally from these foundational errors, leading to "fact" 7:

"That the COMMISSION the Church, the Body of Christ, is to work under, is found in II Corinthians 5:14-21 and Ephesians 3:9. The Kingdom commission of Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-18 does not belong to God's present grace purpose."

2 Cor 5:14-21 speaks of our mission to preach the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Matthew 28 is the Great Commission ("go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.")

I think this sets things more in context.

The HD seem to be trying to break free from postmillenialism (the idea that the Church should be reconstructing the world into Christ-likeness). This makes sense for the original authors' timeframe (before 1940). That was in the midst of the great meltdown of postmillenialism (which peaked during World Wars I and II).

It is important to realize one can have both 2 Cor 5 and Matthew 28 without postmillenialism.

What Jesus commanded was not obedience to the Law, and theocracy. He taught the Law as a schoolmaster (which is what Paul says), to drive us to repentance. That is the "command" - "repent".

We are obedient to the command when we repent and trust that Jesus has paid the price of sin for us. We are baptized (just as the Gentiles in Cornelius' household were) as an outward sign of this obedience, which has worked an inward change.

This (HD) is an overreaction to a problem that didn't exist (as many heresies are).

Biologos and Marcionism, Again

(in reference to my earlier post)

If Karl Giberson (of Biologos) were a starship, and we were privy to the dialogue on the bridge of that ship, we might hear, "Full power to the forward spin generators!"

Now, while Giberson is spinning, I don't think he is repenting (or perhaps, over repenting?)

Quoth Giberson:

"the greatest challenge of the Old Testament is the morality of God’s actions as described by various authors" (emphasis in original)

That is truly interesting and revealing. God defines what is good. Whatever God says and does is good. To suppose otherwise is to create a standard of goodness greater than God.

"My office overlooks a pre-school and there is nothing so innocent as those toddlers running about at recess. I am simply unable to imagine any scenario where God—as I understand him—would rain brimstone down on their heads, or drown them in a flood."

The tsunami in Indonesia killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children. The earthquake in Haiti likewise. What is God's involvement in these things? Where is sin, where is judgment? Giberson is stuck because these things must be good (day 5), or God is not in control (as Ken Miller suggests). He doesn't say.

"Do those portrayals faithfully agree with how Jesus himself reveals God in the New Testament?"

Perhaps this is more interesting...

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:23)

Jesus seems to think the judgment of Sodom was right - and that some will get it worse than Sodom. Does Giberson not believe these verses can be attributed to Jesus?

Know Your Heresies - Docetism

Docetism is accociated with the Gnostics. I like to reserve the label Gnostic (from gnosis or knowledge) for those who promote a notion of "special knowledge" necessary for salvation (like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Oprah's The Secret).

The Gnostics, being a group of people, held many different ideas, many of which interacted or were logically connected.

One of which was material dualism (which may get its own post) - the idea that the physical is evil and the spiritual good. This led to the conclusion that God cannot become physical in Jesus, which is what is referred to as Docetism.

Heresies come and go, and docetism is not very popular today (Modernism has given us the idea that the physical is good and the spiritual evil [well, nonexistent], so there is little attraction).

It is possible a backlash against Modernism may cause the pendulum to swing back.

1 John 4:3b "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God"

Biologos and Marcionism

In my previous post, I (snarkily) summarized the form of posts at Biologos. There is an interesting departure from this in the form of Dr. Karl Giberson's "Straw Men of Atheism" posts.

Giberson is not a fan of presuppositional apologetics. He uses an evidential form, and it is quite insightful (or inciteful?) to see the atheists tear him up in the comment sections.

In the fifth installment, Giberson actually manages to belittle the Bible and open himself to atheist scorn - actually going so far as to embrace Marcionism:

"In The God Delusion Dawkins eloquently skewers the tyrannical anthropomorphic deity of the Old Testament—the God that supposedly commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages and who occasionally went on his own rampages, flooding the planet or raining fire and brimstone on wicked cities. But who believes in this deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God."

Biologos insists that evolution and Christianity are compatible. I guess it all depends on what you mean by "Christianity". Not Biblical Christianity, but the teachings of (modern) liberal theologians.

The Shack

I haven't read "The Shack", so I can't say too much. However, Albert Mohler has read it, and he has lots to say.

"the Christian church has explicitly identified these teachings as just that — heresy"

Mohler identifies several serious problems, including:

1. Portrayal of the Trinity
2. Universalism

I have seen some people say, "It's just fiction". True, it is fiction - but everything is shaped by theology, and can shape one's theology.

That this book has been shaped by bad theology, no one denies. The group surrounding the author support this theology. This is not an honest mistake, a misinterpretation of a creative vision. This is faithful to what the author believes.

And this could cause a weaker brother to stumble. It is a mature Christian's responsibility to not promote this sort of thing.

This is the reason I often prefer secular (even atheist) fiction and entertainment - compared to bad Evangelical stuff. At least I know the theology is going to be a train wreck going in, and am on constant defense. With Evangelical stuff, I have to run everything through a doctrine checker before I can enjoy it.

Know Your Heretics - Nestorius

I have been accused of the heresy of Nestorianism, so this will be a quite appropriate entry in our series.

Nestorius (c. 386 - c. 451) struggled with the doctrine that Jesus is one man with two natures - divine and human. This is a hard problem - in what way could we say that "God is hungry" (Matt 4:2), or "God is tired" (John 4:6)? I'm not sure. God is spirit, a spirit does not feel these things. And God is omnipotent, these things seem contrary to that.

At the same time, Jesus is God, and:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." Hebrews 2:17-18

Jesus, being God, was made like us and felt all the things we feel. You would be right to say "God suffered".

Nestorianism is the teaching that Jesus was (is?) two people - one God, one man. According to Wikipedia, Nestorius himself denied this ("Nestorius responded that he believed that Christ was indeed one person").

The main problem is that Jesus has two natures. This is the finding of Chalcedon, there is agreement there.

If we apply all of His human nature to God, then we make no distinction between God and Man. That is, if there are two natures - the two natures must be different in some way. If one is a subset of the other, then He really only had one nature. (struggling here...) If God is in every way like Man (through Jesus), then Jesus only had one nature - that of God (Man being a subset, lacking things like eternal preexistence and omnipotence).

To restate, if God is in every way like Man (through Jesus), and Man is therefore like God - only lacking in certain things (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) - then Jesus did not have Man's nature. He had God's nature (which includes all the ways that Jesus is like Man) - because Jesus is not lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

I will have to read more on Chalcedon and exactly what Nestorius taught, and what was attributed to him. Of course, the attack I am making has come up before, being monophysitism. I will have to look into that as well.. (the beauty of Church history being that every argument has occurred before, it is just a matter of looking it up :)

Know Your Heretics - Sabellius

The heresy of Sabellius is more commonly referred to as "modalism".

Sabellianism, like Arianism, is a perversion of the doctrine of the Trinity - a very hard doctrine. It is understandable that some confusion might arise, and it is good to have these things spelled out very explicitly.

Modalism exists today. It is said T.D. Jakes is a modalist, and that "United Pentecostals" or "Oneness Pentecostals" all teach modalism.

Anyone who emphasizes "God is one" while saying there are three "modes" or "roles" (rather than the key phrase "persons") is likely a modalist, or at least may be muddled in the direction of modalism. It is the idea that God is one, and that the Father was God in the Old Testament, Jesus was God on earth, and the Holy Spirit is God today (not all three eternally).

Modalism is easily shown to be false:

1. Jesus talks to the Father (John 12:28)
2. All three persons of God were present at Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)
   
3. The witness of heaven is three-fold (1 John 5:7)
   

Additionally, God is love - love is a relationship - a relationship needs more than one person.

Failure to understand the Trinity may lead to worshipping the wrong God (as the Muslims do). It can also damage the marriage relationship (the submission of the woman is related to the submission of Jesus to the Father).

Spiritualism

Found an interesting article in Science Daily on what seems to be a rising trend - spiritualism (non-materialist feelings and beliefs, separate from any institutional divine revelation).

The article starts off with a bang:

"To make children happier, we may need to encourage them to develop a strong sense of personal worth"

Of course - no indication of what this worth is, where it comes from, why, etc. Remember, these are children who would of been murdered in the womb if their mothers didn't think they were "worth" the trouble of pregnancy. Also, children in Africa are allowed to be drafted into armies or starved to death. Are these children worth more than those? Because they are bigger, or American?

This is something secularism must work out. Clearly, not all people have the same value (or "value" itself is meaningless, as we do nothing to protect the value of some, while moving mountains to protect others). As a Christian, I can say that sin prevents us from acting equitably. We are all valuable, because we are made in the image of God. The secular position currently seems to be "we all are equally valuable, but some are more equal than others".

Continuing...

"Their research shows that children who feel that their lives have meaning and value and who develop deep, quality relationships - both measures of spirituality - are happier. It would appear, however, that their religious practices have little effect on their happiness."

One point in here: "feelings of value" and "quality relationships" are measures of spirituality? And again, the secular confusion that all religions are the same...

Again:

"spirituality (an inner belief system that a person relies on for strength and comfort)"

Now spirituality is a belief system! No question as to whether this system is true...

Should we teach children lies so they feel better about themselves? That seems to be the argument from most spiritualists. It is also the number one charge against Christians by atheists. Atheists seem split - Sam Harris is a big proponent of spiritualism.

Osteen, Recession, and the Gospel

I won't spend too much time on this, because most everything that needs to be said has been said...

That said, it is interesting how much good press the Osteens get from mainstream media, and their continuing failure to preach the Gospel (which probably correlates...):

This time at CNN, an interview with Victoria. Interviewer:

"Your first book was released in October. Why did you write it? Who were you hoping to inspire?"

Now, I haven't read Victoria's book. But she is supposed to be a Christian, a preacher's wife. So, I would hope the book would be about why we should be Christian. You know, the Gospel - the Good News about forgiveness of sin, and being right with God...

Victoria:

"Relationships are people's No. 1 priorities."

That's right! Our relationship with God! Go for it, give the Gospel!

continuing:

"I addressed a lot of those issues, and just gave practical advice from my life and people I've talked to. So I just hoped to inspire people to just realize their influence, their value, and the fact that they can get even more out of their relationships and enjoy them."

:...(

Donatists Alive and Well

According to CNN, the Catholic church in Brazil has apparently forgotten a hard earned lesson of orthodoxy - Donatism.

I covered this heresy over a year ago. Donatus believed that the effectiveness of sacraments was tied to the individuals performing them. The orthodox position is that it is God who is effective for everything in our lives.

Apparently, some things get forgotten after 1700 years:

"It said couples married by Santos must now seek a 'legitimate priest' to renew their vows."

Heresy Challenge

I am thankful to have both EWTN (Catholic) and TBN (evangelical) available on TV. It gives me a chance to find something edifying on TV.

Of course, it also requires a lot of discernment.

Sometimes, I like to play a little game I call "The Heresy Challenge".

The rules are kind of fast and loose. Is it based on which teaching is most contradictory to the Bible? or closest? Is the winner doing better or worse? Which makes it a lot of fun!

Yesterday, I turned on TBN at 7 pm (Way of the Master, season 3, oh yea!). Sadly, they were having a fundraiser...

They were using a passage from Kings (I forget where), to say that if you sent in $1000, God would give you whatever you want!

Ok, so, I figured, "we have a winner!" Then flipped it over...

On EWTN, a man was calmly explaining "this is why it is possible for you to lose your salvation"...

AHHHH!!

How does that guy sleep at night, knowing that in the morning he might not be saved, only to have a heart attack during breakfast and go directly to Hell. Wow.

Hard to pick a winner...

More Prosperity

(sorry for the pun)

I have in the past talked about how the "Prosperity Gospel" burns me up.

Now, the indefatigable Albert Mohler has weighed in on the issue, as it relates to the current mortgage debacle.

I think this quote says it best:

"God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house"

Mohler comes right out, guns blazing:

"Prosperity theology is a lie, and a false Gospel."

Yea, Mohler!

Book Review

"The Birth of Christianity" (John Dominic Crossan) - This is a big book, 586 pages - plus appendices. All of it, winding mumblings overturned by its own statement:

Pages 110-111: "Mark was used by Matthew and Luke as the first of their major consecutive sources... Wrong there, wrong thereafter."

Furthermore, Crossan uses absurdly late dates for all canonical books (Mark at 70, and the other Gospels all later).

The absurdity builds, as he uses early dates for Gnostic texts (the "Gospel" of Thomas).

I did learn more about the so-called "Q Gospel", which has always given me a sense of unease (why does John Macarthur never discuss this thing?).

It's totally made up! It's based on the assumption that Matthew and Luke are late and copied from Mark (and ignoring the power of the Holy Spirit). But, they contain common material not in Mark, so some have supposed another shared source for Matthew and Luke - "Q". There is not one physical artifact supporting Q! It is an interpolation backwards from Matthew and Luke (assuming a copied source, an earlier source).

Crossan compounds his error by comparing Thomas to Q, inferring a new text (the "Sayings Tradition"). This is like trying to form a uniform story by combining a history of the Skunkworks with the ramblings of Roswell conspiracy theorists! (Worse, an interpolation of two independent histories of the Skunkworks, by an author inclined towards alien conspiracies)

Of course, there is a motive behind his twisting of Scripture - to override the plain reading. Crossan's angle is "social justice", all the rage in liberal circles. That is, don't preach sin and wrath and repentance. Instead, preach about the evils of the current government, in favor of the government that you would like in power.

An excellent example of this is on page 372: "as Christianity moved more and more into the public and governmental sphere, men had actively to retake such control from women. Women as Luke 10:38-42 put it, should passively listen like Mary rather than actively administer like Martha." (italics in original)

This is wrong is so many ways! Here is the text from Luke:

"Now it came to pass, as they went, that He entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard His word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to Him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

This passage is contrasting distracted busyness with Godly dedication! There is no mention of men and women. That is, it applies equally to men.

Over and over, it is clear that Crossan has rejected the doctrine of the Bible as the Word of God. His theology (effective atheism) is corrupting his interpretation and application. He says it himself (page 524) in an exchange with a questioner at a book reading:

Questioner: "You said that the Barabbas story was created by Mark because, as he saw it, the Jerusalem crowd had picked the wrong savior, namely the brigand-rebels, in the war against Rome that started in 66 CE?"
Myself: "Yes."
Questioner: "Mark himself made it up? ... It's not true?"
Myself: "Yes."
Questioner: "Then why can't you just call it what it is: a lie?"

Crossan is unable to recall his immediate reply. But he justifies himself in the book:

"I have emphasized gospel as updated good news ... They are not straight history, straight biography, straight journalism." (italics in original)

So, lying is ok if you're writing a gospel. Convenient position for a gospel scholar, it allows you to pick and choose - because it's all lies anyways.

Prosperity Again

I've previously spoken about my personal motivation to examine the "Prosperity Gospel". I'm on the Kenneth Copeland mailing list (long story). Looking back through the archives, I found this interesting gem (an article by Vinson Synan, and endorsed by Copeland).

I was never 100% happy (or unhappy) with Ken, but I guess he wants to align himself with the worst aspects of this movement...

This is a long and rambling article, let me extract the key points:

A Parable of the Three Sermons on the Mount: "one a traditional Christian teacher, one a social gospel teacher and the other a Pentecostal preacher with a salvation, healing and prosperity gospel"

I think this section spells it all out. I find it interesting that the "traditional" Christian teacher failed to mention sin. But, I guess that is Copeland's idea of orthodoxy - with that view, I'd look for an "upgrade" too...

Synan mocks the orthodox statements, "Take comfort in your faith. Suffering builds character, and the Lord suffered, too. He will comfort you." Probably a reference to James 1 (which is always good for times of trouble): "Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away."

That brings up a good point. Jesus often talked about how blessed are the poor, and woe to the rich. Why would these preachers wish their congregants the temptation of worldly riches?

The next to last paragraph summarizes it well:

"Some critics think the prosperity message offers a mirage of false hope for the masses of the poor by saying, "If it does not wash in Bangladesh it will not wash in America." Yet it seems to be the poor are the most attracted to the message. To many poor people this teaching offers a ray of hope for better things through trusting God. Others seem to be influenced by the American lifestyle they see in American movies made in Hollywood."

This is the wrong foundation for evangelism. We cannot look at results. Paul was often rejected (or stoned!), but he did not alter the Gospel message. Our duty is to deliver the Gospel, in whole, with patience and even sensitivity. But it is God who calls, God who changes people.

Know Your Heresies: Gnosticism

Gnosticism can be hard to pin down to a specific set of beliefs. It tends to be "syncretic" (merging the beliefs of multiple groups). It also is highly dualistic, expressing a sort of battle between the material and immaterial.

The "Gospel" of Judas is believed to be a Gnostic work. It is certainly typical of the beliefs ascribed to Gnosticism. That is, the material world is evil, and the immaterial (or spirit) is good. There is also (usually) an emphasis on the obtaining of knowledge as necessary for salvation (especially secret knowledge). The roots of many modern cults and "new age" fads are in Gnosticism.

The root ideas of Gnosticism were around during the writing of the Bible (and remain today). In 1 John 4:3b, John says "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God". This is because some would say that Jesus, being God and good, cannot be flesh (which they assume is evil).


Jesus is 100% God, 100% man.

Know Your Heretics: Arius

Arianism in general refers to any teaching that denies that Jesus is (fully, 100%) God.

Arius grappled with the notion of the trinity, a notably difficult doctrine (as is any doctrine dealing with the nature of an infinite God, difficult for our finite minds :).

His false teachings led to the Council of Nicaea (and Nicene Creed, which actually came from the Council of Constantinople). The Nicene Creed remains today the fundamental point of agreement for orthodox Christians.


The notion that Jesus is not God creates several theological problems:

1. Messianic prophecies attribute to the Messiah God-like properties (Isaiah 9:6)
2. If Jesus is only a man, how is it He is without sin? (Romans 3:23)
   
3. If Jesus is not God, but somehow a truly "good" man; how does His death demonstrate God's love?
4. Why does Jesus refer to Himself as eternal, and "I AM" (God's name)? (John 8:58)
   
5. Why does Jesus take the authority of God to Himself (forgiveness of sins)? (Matthew 9:2, etc.)
   

There are many attempts to answer these questions, but none that are fully satisfying. I will touch on a few.

"Jesus was specially created" - If Jesus was specially created without sin (but not as God incarnate), why aren't we all?

"Jesus wasn't meant to die like that, it was just a misunderstanding" - This is a really poisonous idea to hold. I know, I used to believe it! (Thanks "Slaughterhouse Five", not!)

"Jesus referred to Himself as God, because we can all be God" - This is really scary. Mostly because it is so prevalent...

Know Your Heretics: Donatus

Donatists (named for Donatus Magnus) believed that the authority of a person was correlated to the works of that person. In this particular case, a wave of persecution in 303 through 305 had led some Christians to deny the faith.

The Donatists were looking to see these people permanently removed from the church, and denied positions where they would be performing the sacraments.

Their theology held that the sacraments were not "effective" when performed by "illegitimate" people.

Although Donatism captured a large population of believers (particularly in Africa, see pg 177-178 in "The Rebirth of Orthodoxy"), it was (rightly) rejected by orthodox believers.


It is important to remember that it is God who is "effective" for everything in our lives. There is nothing special about the leader of your church, you, me, or any other person besides Jesus Christ. It is the Father who chooses us and draws us to Him. It is the Holy Spirit who baptizes us into the body of Christ (see all of 1 Corinthians 12). It is Christ who is the payment for our sin debt.

The "Prosperity Gospel" Burns Me Up

Internet Monk has an excellent post on what the prosperity gospel is. This teaching offends me for a number of reasons. The main one being it is not the true Gospel, and it is endangering people's salvation (if you don't have the right God and Jesus, you are worshiping an idol).

First a metaphor:
True salvation is like a certificate for an endless buffet. Acknowledge you have fallen short of the glory of God; worse, your lying is an abomination, your angry/hateful thoughts are like murder in God's eyes, your sexual thoughts about people not your spouse are adultery to Him. Agree with God on these matters, and turn from these behaviors. Trust in Jesus to have paid the price, and to keep you from now on. And receive your certificate.

The prosperity gospel says, "Yea, we've got a similar certificate. It looks a little different, but it's good. Plus a bonus! You can have health and wealth here on Earth!" I like to call it the "Believe in Jesus and get a new car" gospel.

But everything they promise is like a little crumb broken off the edge of a cracker compared to the endless feast of true salvation.

And what happens to people when Peter is at the pearly gates inspecting certificates? And the seal is no good? Those people are going into the lake of fire. Is that crumb worth it? Not at all.

Ok, so is this worse than Islam and other religions with their billions of adherents? I admit I have personal experience with this one. Some people in my family have way too much exposure to this garbage. And this bad theology makes my life a nightmare. Because it has many side effects:

1. It inoculates people against the true Gospel. They think, "Yea, I'm a Christian. I'm believing in a better life for myself. I don't need to go to a Church where they read the Bible, I'd rather listen to rock music and hear a sermon on how to get rich and have a good sex life."
2. (The preachers never say this, but people will naturally think it) - If faith makes you prosperous and healthy, then if you are poor or sick - it's your fault. "You don't have enough faith!" "All your talk about the family being off budget is blocking God from making us rich!" "I'm trusting in God to bless me [with wealth], what does it matter to me if we have no savings!"
   
3. These preachers invariably leave sin out of their messages. Obviously, because they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable. The side effect from this, is that people are content in their pride and self-righteousness. "It's your sin that is the problem. Your sin is cursing the family." And what of your sin? "I don't have any sin in my life."
4. The saddest thing is when they use this to manipulate people's hope for their own benefit. A large church near me preaches a lot of this message. It has a huge campus in a urban area. The congregation consists of many poor people. These people are encouraged to give until it hurts. "Tithe against the salary you want to have!" Sow a seed [of money] that God will return ten-, thirty-, seventy-, a hundred-fold. The irony is the leadership of the church has been afflicted with numerous health problems (including death).