Christian Doctrine

         Doctrine must be based on the Bible only, and not on traditions, the declarations of self-appointed "prophets" or mystics, and not on the decisions of scholars or councils. Doctrine must not be declared based on individual verses taken out of the context in which they appear. Doctrine should be interpreted by its consistency with the totality of scripture. Knowledge of biblical languages, history, culture, science, religious traditions, and other religions are all extremely useful but must never, by themselves, determine doctrine.

        We must reject any doctrine derived from eisegesis (doctrine read into the scriptures) and accept any doctrines only if they are derived from exegesis (from or out of the scriptural texts). Any doctrines which we derive from the scriptural texts must be consistent with the full body of scripture to be sure that we are not misreading the intent of the texts.

        We have allowed the progressives ("Progressive" is their current self identification. They have also been known as liberals and relativists) to define themselves as "mainstream" or "moderate." They insult historical Christianity by labelling it as backward, racist, reactionary, homophobic, sexist, intolerant,  irrelevant to the modern world, judgmental, imperialistic, sexist, anti-intellectual, etc., etc., etc. Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah. You get the picture.

        Historical Christianity is none of these things. Part of the reason that this insulting situation has arisen is that many churches have not adequately fulfilled their function to hand on the faith to the following generations. A helpful start would be a renewed emphasis on Christian education in history, doctrine, interpretation,  apologetics, and application of the Christian message in day to day life. We need to be equipping modern day Christian warriors. (Ephesians 6:13-18)

        (... but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks         you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 1 Peter 3:15)

        Historical Christianity is the "mainstream."  Absolute agreement on all points of discussion among Christians is not required. There is a small remnant of true Christians in every truly Christian body. The Lord knows those who are his. Those who wish to redefine the faith are the ones who are creating another doctrine. Many have already crossed the threshold and have effectively left the mainstream historical faith.

Book Comment: The Rise of Benedict XVI

The full title of this 2005 John L. Allen book is The Rise of Benedict XVI. The Inside Story of How the Pope Was Elected and Where He Will Take the Catholic Church. I am not a Catholic and so have no standing one way or the other on this. I do not wish to offend. But, speaking as an outsider, as one of the “separated brethren,” I personally think the tragedy of this book is that Benedict did not ultimately complete the promise of his election. He did speak about the problem on numerous occasions. Then, he resigned eight years into his papacy.

I am sure that I am not alone as one who was thrilled at the thought that a champion of the faith had arisen. Joseph Ratzinger, elected as Benedict XVI, had identified relativism as the “gravest problem of our time.” 

Many thought that he would marshall the resources of the Catholic Church to battle what he called  the “dictatorship of relativism.” Many conservative Evangelicals understood this phenomenon by a different terminology, the “war on Christianity”

Exactly what is relativism? It is the idea that objective truth does not exist or that, if it does exist, it is not attainable by the human mind. Truth is defined as it is determined by the community. Sometimes the community is as small as one person. That is how one can hear the absurd statement, “Well, that is your truth. That is not my truth.”

Proponents of relativism talk about tolerance, pluralism, avoidance of imperialism and colonialism, and of non-interference in other cultures. All of these things are good but the relativists go even further. 

They utterly deny and even condemn the possibility of any absolute truth which is valid for all people in all cultures and for any time in history. This is a direct hostile frontal challenge to Christianity which is based on an absolute truth claim. The claim is this: God has revealed the Truth about Himself and about humanity in the revelation presented in Jesus Christ. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. As Jesus said, “No man comes to the Father except through me.”

Relativism attacks Christianity in several ways.

1. It denies the exceptionality, the exclusivity, and the universality of Christianity. It sees Christianity as just one religion among many, all of which are equally valid.

2. It declares evangelism and missions to be imperialistic and colonialistic. It sees them as an attempt to force our beliefs and culture upon others.

3. In its zeal to be “tolerant” relativism seeks to punish and suppress those whom it defines as intolerant; such as those who wish to not be involved in cooperation with same-sex marriage.

4. Relativism can lead to totalitarianism because it removes any legitimate basis for moral judgement over the limits of state power used to enforce "tolerance."

5. Relativism’s removal of moral limits has caused a cheapening of human life. This has led to the abortion and human cloning controversies. Human rights are seen as being determined by social convention rather than by any absolute intrinsic human value.

As Benedict XVI said, “All ideologies of power justify themselves in exactly this way. They justify the destruction of whatever would stand in the way of progress and the liberation of humanity. God, who became a lamb, tells us that the world is saved by the crucified, not by those who crucify. Pray for me that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

Pray for all of us that we may not flee for fear of the wolves!

____________________________________________________________________________

Back to the book.

The Rise of Benedict XVI is a fascinating unfolding of the history of the events and politics which swirled around the last days of John Paul II, the various factions, the leading papabili (papal candidates), a discussion about how Joseph Ratzinger was viewed before his election, why smoke is used to signal the populace of Rome about the progress of the conclave, the meaning of various rituals and declarations, why three sets of robes are prepared for the incoming pope, and why the Cardinals are locked into the conclave rather than other people being locked out. There is also speculation about what Benedict might do as pope.

Back to the concern which began and ended this post. Why did Pope Benedict resign and who  are the wolves he referenced? Benedict XVI was the first pope to resign in 600 years, citing waning physical and mental powers. This flew in the face of the adage, "The Pope is not sick until he is dead."

John L. Allen, the writer of the book being discussed, was present at the papal announcement and says that as soon as Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica and said the name "Ratzinger," several of the monsignors from the Secretariat of State turned around and went inside the building.  Benedict's butler, Palo Gabriele, leaked documents which exposed numerous Vatican power struggles. Benedict's successor, Pope Francis, has declared that "the court is the leprosy of the papacy." Cardinal Carlo-Maria Martini is quoted as having told Pope Benedict, "The curia is not going to change, you must go ..."

___________________________________________________________________

A general caution: books may give you wonderful new insights and explanations of subjects, but you should never base your Christian beliefs on any one book or the teachings of one person, no matter who they are. All teachings must be consistent with scripture. Read as the Bereans did, with discernment. “… for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Acts 17:11 NASB

Any doctrines must be consistent with the historical full body of Christian thought. Doctrines or teachings inconsistent with scripture in any way must be rejected. You would not eat cheese which had a fuzzy fungus growing on it.

War on Christmas

In the United States there is a controversy raging over whether or not there is a conscious attempt being made by some to suppress Christianity. There is a war on Christianity. There is not a war on Christianity. Progressives and /or liberals insist that Christian claims of cultural persecution are merely paranoia. Conservative Christians point out the banning of public religious displays, the silencing and even shunning of Christian voices on university campuses, and the fact that Christians are rarely portrayed in a positive light in the popular media.

There is currently a legal challenge from the Madison, Wisconsin based Freedom from Religion Foundation against a public nativity scene on town property in tiny Rainbow City, Alabama (2010 census population 9602). The two locations are separated by 825 miles (1328 kilometers). The foundation seems to think that any public display of religion is dangerous and threatening. They call their challenge part of the "critical work to promote non-theism and defend the constitutional separation between religion and government." They charge that the views of the religious are being imposed on others who do not share those views. They fail to understand or to acknowledge that what they themselves are doing is the imposition of their own values upon others.

A Google Search of "War on Christianity"on 14 December 2014 pulled up 11,300,000 results.   A Google Search of "War on Christmas"on 14 December 2014 pulled up 149,000,000 results. Those who deny that a war is ongoing are often very derisive. Listen to these quotes from various internet sites:

"... the claims of religious persecution are laughable."
"... the intellectually atrophied..."
"... undereducated, white, rural, gun carrying, fat."

What do you think?

Book Comment: If the Church Were Christian, Chapter 1, Part 2

If you are joining this book review series mid-stream , you can read the comments from the beginning by going to the LABELS section following the last post on this page and clicking on PHILIP GULLEY

If the Church Were Christian. Chapter 1, Part 2; in a chapter by chapter series of posts in response to the book by Pastor Philip Gulley. Chapter One: Jesus Would Be a Model for Living Rather Than an Object of Worship.

Pastor Gulley insists that Jesus was a totally orthodox monotheistic Jew who never challenged any of the tenets of Judaism.  This is absolutely true, but Jesus exhibited no hesitation about redefining or "raising the bar" on the meaning of his faith.  "... you have heard it said ... but, I say ..."

Gulley makes the same mistake as many others who attempt to recover the "historical Jesus."  They are  correct to say that the organized church has often "Godized" Jesus to the point where He couldn't really be human (the heresy known as Docetism) and that, to properly understand Him, we must understand that He was a first century orthodox Jewish rabbi.  Saying that, they go on to make the mistake of thinking that He was only a first century orthodox rabbi.  To them, He was human; a brilliant teacher and religious leader; He may have even had a special spark or quality, what the Quakers call "that of God in all people;" but He couldn't have been God and didn't claim to be God.

More to follow later.

Book Comment: If the Church Were Christian

Gulley, Philip, If the Church Were Christian. A chapter-by chapter response.

Gulley's propositions:

 1. "Jesus would be a model for living rather than an object of worship."

 2. "Affirming our potential would be more important than condemning our brokenness."

 3. "Reconciliation would be valued over judgement."

 4. "Gracious behavior would be more important than right belief."

 5. "Inviting questions would be valued more than supplying answers."

 6. "Encouraging personal exploration would be more important than communal uniformity."

 7. "Meeting needs would be more important than maintaining institutions."

 8. "Peace would be more important than power."

 9. "It would care more about love and less about sex."

10. "This life would be more important than the afterlife."

All, or most, of these propositions have some truth to them and all of them have some error.  They are all based on the "progressive" or "emergent Christian" outlook which views traditional Christianity as outdated and in need of being made relevant.

"Progressive" Christians are dismissive of doctrinal orthodoxy, seeing it as old-fashioned and in need of re-interpretation for the modern world.  They are very likely to adopt "reasonable"modern attitudes and beliefs, some of which are completely at odds with scripture.

Many become sarcastically dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them.  Some of their more progressive ideas cross over a line which makes them a "different gospel," no longer Christian.  

More on this later.

Film Comment: Watermelon Man

     In Watermelon Man (1970), a comedy directed by controversial director Melvin van Peebles [Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song (1971)], an obnoxious white man (Godfrey Cambridge in white makeup not up to 2009 standards) wakes up black and his entire world collapses around him.  He thinks it's a medical condition but he finds out that he's just black.  Everyone starts to treat him differently, even his progressive liberal wife (Estelle Parsons) who finds out that she's not so open minded after all.  He becomes increasingly alienated and hostile.  

     It amazes me that people, black and white, won't let it go, but, in America, race really is still the 800 pound gorilla that won't leave us alone.  Some people are so conditioned to think race first that they assume that any criticism of a black person by a white person must be because of a racist motive.  Others are convinced that persons descended from slaveholding ancestors ought to walk around in a heavy cloud of guilt.

     I am convinced that the solution does not lie in education, patriotism, nationalism, mind control, forced political correctness, shaming, or emerging from a cocoon as a "pod person."  The solution lies in the like-mindedness which comes from having the same nature, the Mind of Christ.

     Racism and other divisive attitudes are incompatible with a declaration of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  If we are His we should be like him.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" Philippians 2:5

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10: 34-35.

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Romans 10:12

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

 

Common Sense Predictions for the Next Ten Years

Update on 13 February 2025. I mostly missed on these predictions though I still think that several of the events will eventually happen. The predictions which were correct are numbers 2, 8, 10. Prediction number 6 has been partially completed with the legalization of marijuana/CBD products in some parts of the United States.

1. Human cloning will be perfected in North Korea, with plans to create an army of identical super soldiers.

2. Israel and the Palestinians will still not have peace.

3. After Iran's bloody revolution, the royalty will be restored.

4. France and Spain will become predominantly Muslim.

5. After same sex marriage is legalized in the United States, a push to legalize polygamy and other forms of group marriage will begin.

6. Hard drugs will be legalized and their sale will be taxed. 

7. Numerous churches will renounce their tax-exempt status in order to prevent governmental interference in their affairs.

8. After the withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan both countries will fall under al-Qaida/Taliban style control.

9. A practical human blood substitute will eliminate the need for blood banking.

10. The tendency of religious denominations to fragment into conservative and "progressive" factions will accelerate.